Obama caves, agrees to give up Democrat tax increases

[Little-Acorn]

President Obama has agreed to give up the tax increases that Democrats had insisted on during the Bush administration, to take place at the end of this month. Obama also said he wanted to cut the Social Security tax, for one year only (?), without saying how he would pay for it. Continuing the present low income tax rates has historically paid for itself by increasing economic activity and thus the amount of income available to tax. But cutting the Social Security tax won't produce any more revenue for SS.

Elections have consequences. It's nice to finally get some that benefit the country after the 2010 election, after all the grief that were the consequences of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Now, Republicans had better hold the line against any other Democrat tax increases, and start cutting down spending and unconstitutional programs. After Republicans' wild spending of 2000-2006, they have a lot to answer for, and are very much on probation. Time for them to become conservative instead, and stay that way. Then they might stay in office.

--------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html

Tax-cut deal reached between Obama, Republicans

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2010; 7:02 PM

President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed Monday to a tentative deal that would extend for two years all the Bush-era income tax breaks set to expire on Dec. 31, continue unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months and cut payroll taxes for workers to encourage employers to start hiring.

The deal has been in the works for more than a week and represents a concession by Obama to political reality: Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to extend only the expiring income tax breaks that benefit the middle class. The White House estimates that the proposed agreement would prevent typical families from facing annual tax increases of about $3,000, starting Jan. 1.

 

[Gipper]

Something is up with this that is not clear as yet.

But, I am glad to see much of the Communist Party (Dems) are very upset with BO.

 

[dogtowner]

Something is up with this that is not clear as yet.

But, I am glad to see much of the Communist Party (Dems) are very upset with BO.

Congress may just say no. Obama looks reasonable and the rest look crazy. Don't make any plans for that tax money till the nk is drey on te signed legislation.

 

[PLC1]

Interestingly enough, this compromise postponed the scheduled end of tax cuts until just after the next election. Coincidence, no doubt, couldn't be political gamesmanship, no.

Should the economy actually turn around in the next couple of years, the Democrats will be touting their stimulus, while the Republicans point to the continued cuts. Personally, I hope they both get to make their little rants, as that will mean that the economy has, indeed, returned.

More likely, the Democrats will be calling for more stimulus, while the Republicans call for additional tax cuts, and the voters blame the incumbents and vote the rascals out.

Oh, well. Maybe the new incumbents will at long last face the reality that there is no magic fairy dust that will bring about a balanced budget and fiscal sanity. Only real spending cuts and tax increases is going to do that.

What's up with cutting SS taxes? Who is going to pay for that one? Oh, I know. It will be blamed on Obama's successor, whoever that is.

 

[steveox]

Remember George W Bush daddy cave in to the Democrats and raised your taxes? Obama did the oppisite thing that what George Bush did in 20 years ago.

 

[Rick]

Notice how libs and the shill media are framing the issue - "the end of tax Bush's tax cut" as opposed to what the real issue is - the biginning of attempted democrat tax increases.

 

[dogtowner]

What's up with cutting SS taxes? Who is going to pay for that one? Oh, I know. It will be blamed on Obama's successor, whoever that is.

Plenty of cash left in porkulus for this and it's only a for a year. well, at least utiul it's next December and things are the same. Or worse. This does have potential for upping spending among the employed which makes it a good idea.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Notice how libs and the shill media are framing the issue - "the end of tax Bush's tax cut" as opposed to what the real issue is - the biginning of attempted democrat tax increases.

you mean, libs are correct...as if taxes where to be lowered permanently...they could have passed the law that way..they did not....The Dems actuly voted 2 times already to keep those tax cuts for all income earned up to 250,00....Republicans voted against it...so if this does not come to a vote and the tax cut ends....Republicans in fact ....voted against keeping the tax rate down....or as you see it...voted to raise taxes on all...

 

[PLC1]

Cutting taxes until after an election while waging a war is simply political gamesmanship. The whole idea was to give the next administration the choice of "raising" taxes by letting the temporary cuts lapse, or face even bigger deficits. The recession made the issue even more juicy from a partisan viewpoint: There is no right answer. Raise taxes during a recession? Why, we can't do that! Say, what are you going to do about the deficit? Must be because of "Obamacare." Meanwhile, the Democrats do the same thing by passing a temporary extension of the tax cuts to expire right after the next election.

It's all a huge chess game, with the voters as pawns.

 

[Rick]

you mean, libs are correct...as if taxes where to be lowered permanently...they could have passed the law that way..they did not....The Dems actuly voted 2 times already to keep those tax cuts for all income earned up to 250,00....Republicans voted against it...so if this does not come to a vote and the tax cut ends....Republicans in fact ....voted against keeping the tax rate down....or as you see it...voted to raise taxes on all...

And now they can by act or ommission cause them to stay the same or go up. naturally, they want them to go up. They do so in support of perhaps their most successful demogogy - hatred for and envy of the rich. They also want more of society's resources in the hands of government, in support of their two year push for uber-statism. The overwhelming majority of taxes is paid by people who make MORE than $250,000 - the $250,000 limit was just a sham to deceive the uninformed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

you mean, libs are correct...as if taxes where to be lowered permanently...they could have passed the law that way...

No, they could not. Recall that Democrats in the Senate threatened to filibuster the tax cuts and kill them entirely unless Bush included a sunset date. He didn't want to, but he agreed to include it, to prevent the filibuster.

If you're worried about calling them by the correct name, you should call them "The Bush tax cuts with the Democrat tax increase at the end".

But then, if you were worried about calling them the right name, why haven't you been calling them "Bush's repeal of the Clinton tax increases"?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

And now they can by act or ommission cause them to stay the same or go up. naturally, they want them to go up. They do so in support of perhaps their most successful demogogy - hatred for and envy of the rich. They also want more of society's resources in the hands of government, in support of their two year push for uber-statism. The overwhelming majority of taxes is paid by people who make MORE than $250,000 - the $250,000 limit was just a sham to deceive the uninformed.

News flash...you cant reduce the debt...with out putting more money in the hands of the government....

a progressive tax that costs more for the very wealthy....is a hate of the rich?
well please inform the class...when the last time we did not have a progressive tax rate....I was not aware that tax brackets where based on level of hate...
Maybe you would be happy if we lowered there taxes even more to the same as the poorest tax bracket....dont worry we will just raise it on everyone else in the US to make it debt neutral ...Taxes just went up for 99% of Americans...enjoy

It must have sucked in the 90's when we must have hated the rich so much...and they profited ...soo much....

More republican Econ...tax Cuts...yell reduce debt...don't actually cut costs...or better yet just spend more as well....

 

[Little-Acorn]

News flash...you cant reduce the debt...with out putting more money in the hands of the government....

Wrong as usual. Don't you get tired of that?

You can reduce the debt without putting more money in the hands of government, by telling government to quit spending it on unnecessary and unconstitutional programs, and paying down the debt with it instead.

In other words, by cutting spending.

You know. The debt that was run up by paying for those unconstitutional programs in the first place. That debt.

 

[Gipper]

Wrong as usual. Don't you get tired of that?

You can reduce the debt without putting more money in the hands of government, by telling government to quit spending it on unnecessary and unconstitutional programs, and paying down the debt with it instead.

In other words, by cutting spending.

You know. The debt that was run up by paying for those unconstitutional programs in the first place. That debt.

Oh No no no nooooooooooooo.....we will NOT reduce government spending. We need all that spending to enslave as many Americans as is possible so they vote for the Commie Party (use to be known as Democrat Party). Plus those stinking rich buggers stole from the poor and downtrodden to get rich. So, we need to take as much of their money as we can....

EXCEPTION: Cutting the Defense budget is okay cause those bastards still vote for the other party. And we as a nation are evil and not deserving of a military to protect us.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Wrong as usual. Don't you get tired of that?

You can reduce the debt without putting more money in the hands of government, by telling government to quit spending it on unnecessary and unconstitutional programs, and paying down the debt with it instead.

In other words, by cutting spending.

You know. The debt that was run up by paying for those unconstitutional programs in the first place. That debt.

and since I live in the real world, where Regan, Bush, Bush W...all did not do that..I know that you know who will also not? the current republicans...

So untill you do that....debt reduction means take more income in...you can't say well but if we did reduce spending it would go down.....when you are reducing the income....

its like if I said, in theory I would like to spend less...but my paycheck is getting less...but I am not spending less...do to this...I am able to reduce my debt...becuse you know...im thinking realy hard about spending less....just not doing it.