Score one for the middle class

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Congress Averts Higher Tax Bill for Middle Class

WASHINGTON — Congress on Wednesday gave final approval to a plan that will spare millions of middle-class taxpayers higher tax bills for 2007. The White House welcomed the development and said President Bush would sign the bill.

There is little enough good news coming out of Washington these days. This is most welcome.
 
Werbung:

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
Congress Averts Higher Tax Bill for Middle Class



There is little enough good news coming out of Washington these days. This is most welcome.
Interesting, Republicans protecting the wealthy(as usual), at the expense of the national debt.
The Democrats repeatedly tried to get Senate Republicans to back a plan that would have imposed new taxes, particularly on wealthy hedge fund managers, but the Republicans refused. Because the lawmakers did not offset relief from the alternative tax, the national debt will increase by $50 billion.

“The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans almost in lock step in both bodies have prevented us,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, in one of several furious speeches by Democrats on the House floor.

“We are forced today to recognize that we don’t have the votes to pursue the pay-as-you-go principle that we adopted in a bipartisan fashion,” Mr. Hoyer said. “I regret this day and this bill.”
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Interesting, Republicans protecting the wealthy(as usual), at the expense of the national debt.

Fifty billion is $500 per taxpayer that we won't have to give Washington, most of it from the middle class.

Do you favor higher taxes as a way of balancing the budget?

I'd like to see spending decrease instead. We've seen the federal budget increase from 1.7 trillion in '00 to 2.9 trillion proposed for '08 with the war and any natural disasters "off budget", ie, adding to the already out of control spending.

1.7 trillion to 2.9 trillion is an increase of over 70%. Has your income gone up that much in the last eight years?
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
The national debt, as of today, is now $9,148,200,438,261.95.

Since Sept 2006 it's grown an average of $1.43 billion a day.

Thanks George!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Yes, about $91,000 per taxpayer. If I had that much credit card debt, I might just think about curbing spending and living within my means, wouldn't you?

Time to cut up those credit cards, tighten belts, and live within our means.

Not that any real fiscal constraint is likely. Fiscally conservative politicians from either party are as rare as whooping cranes.
 

jpn of Seattle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
86
Interesting, Republicans protecting the wealthy(as usual), at the expense of the national debt.

That's exactly right. The Democrats had enacted PAYGO rules, meaning that any expendatures need to be paid for--pay as you go, in other words.

But the Republicans don't believe in pay as you go. They preferred to just tack this $50 billion onto the nation's credit card.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
That's exactly right. The Democrats had enacted PAYGO rules, meaning that any expendatures need to be paid for--pay as you go, in other words.

But the Republicans don't believe in pay as you go. They preferred to just tack this $50 billion onto the nation's credit card.

They used to:

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

from the Contract with America

We should sue them for breach of contract.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Except it's not the same people.

While a few of the players might be different, it is the same party with plenty of the same people my Jarheaded buddy.
I have said before, and will say again, this isnt the fault of one party or the other as both are so much in bed with each other, both are just as guilty. 20 years ago, it was the democrats with excess spending that brought about the contract with America, 15 years ago or so. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The GOP had 6 years of unchecked control in congress and the executive, they ran up spending to untold numbers and cut taxes in the process. How does that work?
For myself, I am a fisherman, I get paid on how much fish I catch. If I dont catch enough salmon, I dont get to take that vacation, buy a new boat, repair the tape deck:) in my truck etc.
I think it prudent for congress not to spend a nickel without a solid way to raise the revenue to replace it.

Id like to see congress move to a flucuating flat tax. Similar in the way local communities adjust the property tax rate annually. Here is our expenses...
here is our other revenue sources, we need to have x flat tax rate across the board to cover those costs. It makes spending become actually justified.

But what the hell does congress care anyway? To a member they are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what is right for America long term. When it comes to a billion here and a billion there, it doesnt mean much to them, as it isnt thier money, and when they run out, they can just print more.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
But what the hell does congress care anyway? To a member they are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what is right for America long term. When it comes to a billion here and a billion there, it doesnt mean much to them, as it isnt thier money, and when they run out, they can just print more.

There is the crux of the matter. Why should Congress care about spending the nation into the poor house? By the time the bills come due, they will have moved on to other things anyway. It is we, the people, who need to care, and to make certain that the Congresscritters understand that we demand more fiscal responsibility. If we don't get what we demand, then we will fire the lot of them at the ballot box.

But, alas, I am dreaming. The voters care not a whit about what their elected representatives might do. Most of them don't even bother to vote at all, let alone take the time to understand the issues and vote intelligently.
 
Werbung:

jpn of Seattle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
86
There is the crux of the matter. Why should Congress care about spending the nation into the poor house? By the time the bills come due, they will have moved on to other things anyway. It is we, the people, who need to care, and to make certain that the Congresscritters understand that we demand more fiscal responsibility. If we don't get what we demand, then we will fire the lot of them at the ballot box.

But, alas, I am dreaming. The voters care not a whit about what their elected representatives might do. Most of them don't even bother to vote at all, let alone take the time to understand the issues and vote intelligently.

In 1993 the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate voted in tax hikes on the richest two percent of the population. Not a single Republican voted for the tax hikes. Despite economic horror stories, no recession followed. In fact, the economy was on its way to its longest period of growth since WWII. Within a few years the deficit was wiped out and replaced with surpluses.
But many voters swallowed Republican rhetoric about how the evil Democrats raised their taxes, and in 1994 the Rebulicans wiped the floor with the Democrats in the election. Democrats were effectively punished for bringing some fiscal sanity to America.
So yes, the American public is not terribly well informed and can easily be lied to.
It makes it very hard for politicians to act responsibly when other politicians can be so successful acting irresponsibly.
 
Top