Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GOP spokesman: Senate GOP to oppose Obama tax plan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GOP spokesman: Senate GOP to oppose Obama tax plan

    Senate Republicans will oppose any effort to renew soon-to-expire Bush administration tax cuts if upper income taxpayers are excluded from the reductions. A spokesman for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that every Senate Republican has pledged to oppose President Barack Obama's tax-cutting plan. Obama would renew the tax cuts for most people, but let the top income tax rate rise back to almost 40 percent on family or small business income over $250,000.

    McConnell has said a bill extending the tax cuts for only low- and middle-income earners cannot pass the Senate. Forty-one senators can block a bill with a filibuster, but McConnell spokesman Don Stewart declined to say whether all 41 Republicans would support a filibuster.

    At issue is a year-end deadline to renew a variety of tax cuts enacted in 2001 - when the federal government was running a surplus.

    On Sunday, House GOP Leader John Boehner said he would support renewing tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy if that was his only choice.

    Democrats are worried that November elections could hand the GOP control of the House and perhaps the Senate. The White House and its Democratic allies hope to use the tax-cut fight to cast themselves as defenders of the middle class and Republicans as a party eager to revive the days of the still unpopular former President George W. Bush.

    "We're going to take the next 50-some days to convince the public that's exactly what the Republicans would do - back to the Bush policies," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Gibbs said on NBC's "Today" show.

    Gibbs said the middle class should not be used as a political football by Republicans maneuvering to give tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers, who he said don't need the reductions. Republicans say paring taxes for the wealthy would encourage them and the businesses they operate to create jobs.

    Congressional analysts say renewing the tax cuts for everyone would cost the government $4 trillion over the next decade. With polls showing a broad public anger over spiraling federal deficits, Obama wants to exclude individuals earning over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 - who account for $700 billion of that total.

    "That's a debate we're happy to have," McConnell told the Washington Post. "That's the kind of debate that unifies my caucus."

    Democrats aren't unified behind Obama and their House and Senate leaders. Several Senate Democrats say they would like all of the Bush tax cuts to be extended for another year or two as the economy slowly recovers from the recession.

    "I don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through," Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said Monday. "The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year."

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday also called on Congress to move quickly to extend the tax cuts.

    Geithner and the administration have tried to make the case that conditions would have been worse without Obama's economic policies, including the $814 billion stimulus package. Geithner said that a return to Republican policies would put the economic recovery in jeopardy.

    "We can't afford to go back to the policies of the past decade when we passed large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans without paying for them and saw little impact on job creation and years of stagnation in middle class wages," he said.

    Republicans say the level of spending undertaken by the Obama administration has done little to boost the economy. Instead, it has increased the deficit to unsustainable levels, they say.

    Source: AP

  • #2
    why do Republicans want to raise taxes on all of us instead of the rich? and even those who make over 250k will still get the cut on their first 250k. so basically they are holding the rest of us hostage for their elite millionaire selves and their masters.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dead AIM View Post
      why do Republicans want to raise taxes on all of us instead of the rich? and even those who make over 250k will still get the cut on their first 250k. so basically they are holding the rest of us hostage for their elite millionaire selves and their masters.
      i've given up trying to figure out what the hell the Republican party wants anymore. they obviously don't give a damn about 90% of the voters in this country. they're just fine with massive amounts of government regulation (just so long as they can write in loopholes for anyone who pays them enough cash). They're spiffy with corporations shipping jobs overseas. they love to fight a war on drugs that we lost 20 years ago, they want to keep fighting wars in the middle east. they bail out wall street. they keep pretending social security is still working. they say they're for states rights, but then when the states do something they hate, suddenly they want a federal crackdown.

      Comment


      • #4
        Taxing everyone who makes over $250,000 at a 40% rate is a way from KEEPING anyone from BECOMING rich. Does anybody really think - anybody who follows politics beyond Facebook - that Obama is pushing socialism? He received over 5 times as much in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs than Bush and then filled his cabinet with former Sachs employees. He even appointed the former FED President as his Treasury Secretary (the same FED that's non "federal," manipulates our currency and has never been audited) and then proceeded to bail out the CEOs of almost all the massive investment houses (including Sachs of course) as well as jamming through "health care" legislation that guarantees government-backed private insurance profits for decades to come.

        Yes, yes....I know. McBain being the Rachel Maddow of dumbed-down, WWE-style partisan rhetoric nonsense will point out that I'm a fan of George W and that will be the end of the debate. Bush is bad = Obama is good and that's just how it is. Despite a very obvious old-boy-network in which candidates from BOTH sides of the democrat/republican aisle are groomed for reign in self interest it's not surprising people continue to split hairs. Why complain about the air when it's the only thing you have to breathe, right? Hulk Hogan stands for what I believe in and the Iron Sheik just wants to destroy this country!!

        Anyhoo, vote for the Democrats in November or don't. In the end it really just comes down to voting for the American Idol competitor you find the least racist/sexist/homophobic anyway, and it's always nice getting that little "I voted" sticker to show off at Starbucks.

        Comment


        • #5

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by eponym View Post
            Taxing everyone who makes over $250,000 at a 40% rate is a way from KEEPING anyone from BECOMING rich.
            The highest tax rate was 39% under Clinton and we had the greatest 10-year economic expansion in this country's history. It was 36% under Bush and we had a Great Recession.

            Selection bias FAIL~!

            Originally posted by eponym View Post
            Does anybody really think - anybody who follows politics beyond Facebook - that Obama is pushing socialism? He received over 5 times as much in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs than Bush and then filled his cabinet with former Sachs employees. He even appointed the former FED President as his Treasury Secretary (the same FED that's non "federal," manipulates our currency and has never been audited) and then proceeded to bail out the CEOs of almost all the massive investment houses (including Sachs of course) as well as jamming through "health care" legislation that guarantees government-backed private insurance profits for decades to come.
            The only people who believe President Obama is a socialist are those who want to believe it, the undereducated rubes who hate black people, and those who need to push that meme to bankroll their political operations.

            Originally posted by eponym View Post
            Anyhoo, vote for the Democrats in November or don't. In the end it really just comes down to voting for the American Idol competitor you find the least racist/sexist/homophobic anyway, and it's always nice getting that little "I voted" sticker to show off at Starbucks.
            If you think it's that simple then you're the rube...wonder who is the carny?

            Comment


            • #7
              So the people who opposed Bush did so because he was white? Actually, nevermind....when Palin's President it'll be fun hearing like-mindedly ******ed partisans accusing liberals of being mysogynist.

              And isn't it kind of pathetic to excuse Obama by blaming Bush based on a comparison to Clinton? Why not just point out how great FDR was compared to Hoover and then go give the 85 year-old guy in rainbow suspenders a high-five at the Jack Johnson concert?

              Don't know who the carny is btw....if, however, you don't think it's as simple as big interests (IMF, oil industry, etc) covering their bets by contributing huge sums to both candidates in a two-party system, you're going to need several promotions in order to make it up to rube.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eponym View Post
                So the people who opposed Bush did so because he was white?
                No, they opposed him because he was an incompetent President whose fiscal policies helped turn the greatest economic power the Earth has ever witnessed into a shell of what it once was.

                And isn't it kind of pathetic to excuse Obama by blaming Bush based on a comparison to Clinton? Why not just point out how great FDR was compared to Hoover and then go give the 85 year-old guy in rainbow suspenders a high-five at the Jack Johnson concert?
                FDR was great in part because he had to implement progressive policies BECAUSE of the horrible realities he inherited from the Hoover administration. A cursory knowledge of American political history would give you an understanding of why my comparison was an apt response.

                Google it, kid.

                Don't know who the carny is btw....if, however, you don't think it's as simple as big interests (IMF, oil industry, etc) covering their bets by contributing huge sums to both candidates in a two-party system, you're going to need several promotions in order to make it up to rube.
                It's not as simple as that since the internet has broadened the means in which lay people can bring about change in this country. If YOU think it's as simple as big interests covering their bets then you're still a rube.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                  No, they opposed him because he was an incompetent President whose fiscal policies helped turn the greatest economic power the Earth has ever witnessed into a shell of what it once was.
                  I see. So if Bush were black then what you just typed would have come from a place of racism. Gotcha.


                  Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                  FDR was great in part because he had to implement progressive policies BECAUSE of the horrible realities he inherited from the Hoover administration. A cursory knowledge of American political history would give you an understanding of why my comparison was an apt response.

                  Google it, kid.
                  I just typed "ignorant 20th century political generalizations" into Google and nothing about Hoover, FDR or Clinton came up. Maybe I should try Bing?

                  Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                  It's not as simple as that since the internet has broadened the means in which lay people can bring about change in this country. If YOU think it's as simple as big interests covering their bets then you're still a rube.
                  The internet "has broadened the means in which lay people can bring about change in this country?" Really!? Aside from shit-talking about Sarah Palin and using the race card to sideline anyone opposed to Obama's policies, can you give one recent example of this? Non-recent even? Coming from someone who doesn't think Obama caters to the same special interests as Bush, it ought to be rich indeed!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by eponym View Post
                    I see. So if Bush were black then what you just typed would have come from a place of racism. Gotcha.
                    Way to deflect the conversation to a completely different topic because you know you were wrong. Wonderful move, fella!

                    I just typed "ignorant 20th century political generalizations" into Google and nothing about Hoover, FDR or Clinton came up. Maybe I should try Bing?
                    Try Altavista. It's about as useful as your knowledge of American political history.

                    The internet "has broadened the means in which lay people can bring about change in this country?" Really!? Aside from shit-talking about Sarah Palin and using the race card to sideline anyone opposed to Obama's policies, can you give one recent example of this? Non-recent even?
                    Both sides in recent years have been running anti-establishment candidates and winning: Donna Edwards and the money raising abilities of Governor Dean and then-candidate Obama being two prime examples. Anti-establishment meaning not endorsed by the mainstream party elites. On the policy front, the new FinReg law was pushed extremely hard by the Netroots. The creation of the Consumer Protection Bureau was a key provision.

                    Coming from someone who doesn't think Obama caters to the same special interests as Bush, it ought to be rich indeed!
                    Keep fighting the system, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                      Way to deflect the conversation to a completely different topic because you know you were wrong. Wonderful move, fella!
                      I think it was you who brought racism into the discussion, but I could be wrong. No wait, it was you. Keep trying!



                      Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                      Try Altavista. It's about as useful as your knowledge of American political history.
                      How's this for partisan history: It was Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law and then later apologized for it. Hoover inherited the depression from him. Oh yeah, and FDR invited the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor by placing an embargo on their oil and freezing all their assets in America, launching us into a situation costing hundreds of thousands of lives and prompting the Cold War. But he got us out of the depression. Yay. Go ahead and check with Huffington Post for a rebuttal.

                      Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                      Both sides in recent years have been running anti-establishment candidates and winning: Donna Edwards and the money raising abilities of Governor Dean and then-candidate Obama being two prime examples. Anti-establishment meaning not endorsed by the mainstream party elites. On the policy front, the new FinReg law was pushed extremely hard by the Netroots. The creation of the Consumer Protection Bureau was a key provision.
                      Ha! Hilarious stuff! Seriously, really funny. Obama raised $600 million from the internet! You and Dane Cook dude....you and Dane Cook

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        Hoover inherited the depression from him.
                        The Great Depression began with the stock market crash in late October 1929.

                        Here's a Presidential timeline for your broke ass:

                        Wilson: In office March 4, 1913 – March 4, 1921

                        Harding: In office March 4, 1921 – August 2, 1923

                        Coolidge: In office August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1929

                        Hoover: In office March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933

                        How, exactly, did Hoover inherit the Great Depression from Wilson?

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        It was Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law and then later apologized for it.
                        Source?

                        The source is easy enough to find: National Economy and the Banking System, Senate Documents, Col. 3 No. 23

                        I've done a bit of searching for this quote and can only find it on tax protester sites, without any citation other than date. On the date usually given, Wilson seems to have been in Colorado giving a speech about the League of Nations which has nothing to do with the above quote. His State of the Union speech given a few months later completely contradicts the essence of this quote. I believe the quote to be a false one.

                        And further, the reference to "National Economy and the Banking System, Senate Documents, Col. 3 No. 23" is horseshit.

                        The quote is mostly words Wilson actually wrote, with the first two sentences of it apparently being incorrect and the rest taken from Wilson's The New Freedom. Below is what one can actually derive from connecting together two passages from The New Freedom:

                        A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

                        All of the above is from Woodrow Wilson's The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913).[1] In this same work, Wilson also wrote the below:

                        Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

                        The quotation has been analyzed in Andrew Leonard (2007-12-21), "The Unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson" Salon:

                        I can tell you categorically that this is not a statement of regret for having created the Federal Reserve. Wilson never had any regrets for having done that. It was an accomplishment in which he took great pride.

                        - John M. Cooper, professor of history and author of several books on Wilson, as quoted by Andrew Leonard.

                        Look, kid. You're in over your head. I'm far more educated on American political history than you. McBain will back me up on that fact.

                        Move along.
                        Last edited by Short Irish Guy; 09-16-2010, 2:01 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dane, kudos again buddy....when Wilson talked about a concentrated system of credit "in the hands of a few men" he wasn't really talking about the FED! Woo!! Good times!!

                          And while I OBVIOUSLY didn't run to Wikipedia (like some people), I was well aware of the gap between Presidents. The great depression was most certainly a product of strategized market manipulation along with a central banking system that was given teeth by Wilson. In your type of diluted, 32k political awareness however everything seems to be the immediate predecessors fault; an un-interrupted equanimity of bullshit toleration vis a vis left and right, blue and red, black and white, old Elvis vs Young Elvis, etc. Kinda like blaming Ice T for the shitty writing on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit or giving Al Gore credit for the internet just because he was making speeches when it took off.

                          I appreciate the effort though. I do. You obviously spent a lot of time researching that shit while I was out at a bar. Good work. Run now and fetch me my chips w/ dip.

                          Last edited by eponym; 09-16-2010, 4:26 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eponym View Post
                            The great depression was most certainly a product of strategized market manipulation along with a central banking system that was given teeth by Wilson.
                            Academic source?

                            Here, I'll give you one:

                            Nonmonetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression
                            Ben S. Bernanke
                            The American Economic Review
                            Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jun., 1983), pp. 257-276
                            (article consists of 20 pages)
                            Published by: American Economic Association
                            Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1808111




                            In your type of diluted, 32k political awareness however everything seems to be the immediate predecessors fault; an un-interrupted equanimity of bullshit toleration vis a vis left and right, blue and red, black and white, old Elvis vs Young Elvis, etc.
                            OK, kid. Have fun with that...

                            Comment

                            Unconfigured Ad Widget

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X