Congressional Democrats want to extend a middle-class tax cut; congressional Republicans insist they'll allow everyone's taxes to go up unless Dems also accept a tax cut for the wealthy. As of yesterday, Democrats said they will not cave to the GOP's demands.
The reaction from Congress' most powerful Republican struck me as rather hilarious.
Republicans accused Democrats of playing politics with the economy, after the No. 4 Senate Democrat warned that her party would let $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless the GOP agrees to raise taxes on the wealthy.
"Has it come to this, that Democrats are willing to hurt jobs and tank our economy for the sake of a small business tax hike that would also have disastrous consequences?" House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement, noting that economists say going over the "fiscal cliff" would plunge the nation back into recession.
Oh really. Is this how Republicans really intend to play this game?
Ezra Klein/Washington Post
Last year, for the first time in American history, Boehner and literally every GOP lawmaker on Capitol Hill, held the full faith and credit of the United States hostage as part of an easily-avoidable debt-ceiling crisis. Republicans made a series of non-negotiable demands, and said they would crash the economy, on purpose, unless Democrats paid the ransom.
Indeed, the crisis itself did significant damage, not just to the integrity of the nation and our reputation around the world, but directly to the economy itself. Ezra Klein posted the above chart the other day, showing the obvious impact on the job market when Republicans instigated this crisis, but the fiasco also took a severe toll on consumer confidence.
And now Boehner, one of the ringleaders of the hostage crisis, wants to accuse Democrats of playing politics with the economy? He's warning of "disastrous consequences"? Has the Speaker completely forgotten 2011?
Leave a Comment:
More like this Democrats . Like my dear old ma used to say you want something to cry about ? I'll give you something to cry about . We can get a group of fainting couches ready to put in the congressional halls. I would gladly take a tax hike to thumb my nose at those a$$holes
I agree about taking a tax hike. Not so much to "thumb my nose at those a$$holes" although that's fine, too, but rather because the small decrease in my take-home pay (somewhere around $20/wk, national average) is fairly quickly assimilated into my budget. I might like having the extra $20, but I did just fine in the 1990's without it and have managed to survive (and I do mean survive) with less during the past 4-5 years being unemployed about 40% of the time.
Once more you attempt to take Peter Pan out of Never-Never land. Reality is the biggest fear the right has for it might force them to grow up.
Rep Orange Julius needs another Screwdriver; 5 parts Vodka, 1/2 part orange juice. "For a beautiful orange glow and a sunshiny demeanor"
What a D-bag! ON the other hand it's a pretty rare thing to see Dems stick to their guns on anything, they're almost as flip-floppy as Rmoney but differently...
Maybe I'll get some popcorn at the store today.
Actually letting all the taxes go uncouples middle class tax relief from continued tax relief for the rich. Continuing the same tax cuts down the road is unsustainable. The second round of Bush tax cuts especially cut into meat. The government needs more revenue. Let the cuts expire and then negotiate something new and sustainable.
Unlike mourning Joe and Paul Ryan, I don't think we have to slash and burn social security and medicare. Some current changes to medicare with some modest revenue increases can bring us back to sanity. We can solve our long term fiscal problems while dealing with our current crisis, but that will take grownup give an take.
Is there one thing the Republicans are NOT required to get their undies in a bunch over?
Kindergarten Congress.
I hope they let the tax hike - it will cost some dollars to us normal people - yet it will cost much more to the people that have more and make more money - Democrats and President Obama should have veto the previous law last year - I asked him to - he did not...
The response to Bainer needs to be that Republicans:
- are willing to let the country continue the Great Recession they caused with their failed ideas and policies of the last 30+ years,
- who then stymied the recovery from their Great Recession during the debt ceiling debate, causing the Boehner credit downgrade,
- who then went to obstructing putting the Great Recession behind us by not allowing the AJA or any other serious jobs plan to be considered,
- and who will cause complete tax increases across the board during the continuing downturn
all so the top 1% won't have to suffer the indignity of 4 cents on the dollar after $250,000/year.
Dems better not cave on this.
If Romney says enough will never be enough, then it is quite obvious Romney does have something to hide. Since giving just 2 years of income tax returns can so easily be rigged to look like Romney was doing everything in an ethical and moral way and being a good American citizen. This refusal by Romney is clear proof he is deceiving the American people and has been doing some deceptive things. Which means Romney could never be really trusted in anything he says. Romney and the Olympics are another joke, especially when Romney was using the Olympics for his own business and political interests and gains. Romney is one person for sure that says do as I say, not as I do. Kay Bailey Hutchison is full of crap too as she has been way too deceptive in what she does and is way too much for these extreme rich people. What have been the contributions that have been given to Kay Bailey Hutchison from these extreme rich people? She has clearly as well sold out the American people just as Romney has done. You can clearly see how these crooks cling together trying to keep this cover-up they have going and just so full of lies and deceptions.
What I don't understand is all the talk about Romney hiding something in his tax returns. If he is committing tax fraud or evasion for all those prior years, I would think the IRS would be prosecuting or at least auditing him. And if they were doing any of that it would surely make the news - since he is in a very bright spotlight. I am not saying that I agree with his not providing the returns, but my guess is everything on his return is within the law. Yes, it probably would not be in the most favorable light if they show him paying a minimal tax but all of us use whatever deductions or credits allowed to reduce our own tax - that's what companies like H & R Block do - get the biggest refund allowed by law. In the end I think he will release more returns and it will show him paying less than most people think he should...but I would bet they are all legal deductions/credits - just not ones the average person will like.
"...allowed by law..." that is the law written by legislators heavily influenced by the wealthy/corp lobbyist and campaign donors whom benefit most by the laws they influence. A rigged game to benefit those with the most that want more at the expense of the middle class by having kept wages flat for near 40 years while productivity increased all of which went to wealth accumulation by the rich and corporate profits. To me, the single most indicative ratio of a healthy middle class and honoring "the deal" is the tracking of productivity to wages. The deal is you work to get or work more to get more and the tracking shows the workers have kept their end of the deal while the check-signers have not and our legislators have abandoned fighting for fairness with any genuine will or care.
easily-avoidable debt-ceiling crisis - As in "let's add more to the $ 15 Trillion we already owe. I do not have an answer to the debt, but it seems most people look at in a very cavalier way...like owing 15,000 Billion dollars is no big thing. Yes, I guess it's how you look at it. It is "easily - avoidable" by just eliminating the facade of even having a ceiling. And the usual response that "well, when the economy rebounds, we will get the extra tax revenue and start paying that down". Really? Of course how silly of me...when we have lets say 15 years of $1 Trillion surpluses...we'll be fine. Not one or two years of $1 Trillion surpluses....15. And of course Congress will not be tempted to spend parts or all of those surpluses. Yeah, right.
As for this silly Republican tax tantrum, is anybody mentioning the expiration of the Social Security tax "holiday" (LOVE that term) that is due to expire this year. That is another 2% out of everybody's check.
It's like this Skip, when you are fighting with the wife over who is most responsible for your credit card balance, the sane and responsible thing is not to throw the statement into the trash and refuse to pay. It will unnecessarily harm your ability to get a good rate on credit in the future when you need it regardless how quickly you pay down the balance when you and your spouse have settled the matter.
Somehow double posted with one mouse click.
Skip, I know you think this is impossible. But let's look at a couple strategies:
First, higher taxes - MUCH higher taxes. After WWII, in the 50's, the highest marginal tax rate was 93%. Not saying I like that but even as an average wage earner, my parents got the family through it. And do you know what? It got the Depression and the war paid for.
Second, maybe it could be 30 years of $500B surpluses. Nobody says it has to be paid off tomorrow. Think like a home mortgage. And we had, in recent history, a $300B surplus. It was in 1999-2000. And that was without trying very hard. Slightly higher tax rates and a very good economy.
OK Pauly...but now you are talking about 30 years of surpluses - THIRTY years. Or 50 years at $300 Billion - yeah not impossible but very improbable. And that would probably mean having substantially higher taxes for ALL those years - no tax "holidays" or cuts and having some kind of law to completely prevent Congress from dipping into those surpluses for every single one of those 30 to 50 years. I am not holding my breath on this. :)
miracle,
I agree that they should be talking about debt/deficit reduction but niether side's heart is in it. President Obama had that debt commission to look into it and I have not heard much lately about their recommendations. It was all for show.
Skip, I agree that it seems implausible.
Part of the real problem is that we all have come to believe that taxes go down a rathole and all the things that government does provide - schools, roads, police, fire, even sewer plants - are free. I'm from Minnesota and 5 years ago we got a wake-up call about bridge maintenance when the I35w bridge collapsed. Road/bridge maintenance is not feee and to disregard it has (sometimes terrible) consequences.
It seems to have disappeared, but I thought the tax receipt idea was a really good idea. Then we would see where our taxes went and it might open the possiblity of a wake-up call. We might even be able to designate a tax or a percentage of our individual tax burden to debt repayment.
It has to start somewhere - let it start with me. I am willing to pay more to make this actually happen. Are you?
Most definitely I am ready to bite the bullet for the future generations. I do think that we have to do a major makeover on what we spend government wise. Things like infrastructure and social services are a must, but things like endowments for the arts or federal studies on tse tse fly sex lives have got to go - at least until we cut down our liabilities a decent amount. We should fully fund the needs of the nation and cut back drastically on the wants.
Skip and Pauly, before you go too far off the deep end about debt remember that we owe most of it to ourselves. Ron Paul's bugaboo, the "hidden" tax called inflation helps pay it down.
Skip, you sound sane, why go all anti-science and cut off the hand that feeds you. Basic research like this is very important to our country's bottom line if you actually want to pay down that debt. Read this:
http://sciencebysteve.net/what-i-do-with-tsetse-flies-with-pictures-why-evolution-and-climate-change-matter/
Having grown up about 5 miles from Rachel, I remember the medfly spraying, getting woken up by five helicopters flying formation at 3 AM makes an impression. So did the helicopter that crashed two blocks down from my best friends house. Luckily it only destroyed the family room rather than the family. The only house in the neighborhood assn. controlled area where the architecture doesn't quite match. Sterile flies are much lower impact. [rimshot](If you didn't read the link, this is non-sequitor)
It's like Sarah Palin bitching about volcano research and forgetting that Alaska has far more than its fair share.
miracle,
OK you got me with the tse tse fly - I will put that back into the needs category :). However you must agree that there is a decent amount of Govt spending on things that are not necessary but more of a want type expenditure.
As for the debt - I really don't think it matters who it is owed to. If I have T-bills for expample that come due I would like that "investment" paid back to me with the promised return. And inflation really isn't that cool, although I suspect that is the way it will go - so...buy gold :).
I agree with Pauly. There are bridges all over the country that are in the same
shape as the I35 bridge that fell. Is it worth that extra $20.00 in your take
home every week to drive on safer bridges? How about upkeep on the levees? If
those had been paid for and taken care of the lives we lost here in Minnesota
wouldn't have been lost.
The other part of this is that if we can give up $20.00 per paycheck, what should
the 1% give up? LOTS more than $20.00, that's what. What so many people don't
understand, because they get all their "information" from FAUX Noise,
or from their friends who watch it, drink the FAUX Noise koolade, and tell all
of their friend the same lies that they have heard there.
So here's the big question: If we're willing to give back $20.00 a paycheck how
much can the 1% afford to give up? Folks like Romney who use all the loopholes
that the 1% get are the ones who need to step up. Lots of them have been saying
they want congress to increase their taxes. The Republicans have signed some
stupid agreement with a guy named Grover Nordquist not to increase ANY taxes.
So what is the right doing about that Extra $20.00 that President Obama gave to
the 99% (along with all the other tax cuts he got passed and signed)? The
Republicans are willing to let that tax cut expire, which means that they're
willing to let OUR tax rate increase, they just won't increase taxes for the 1%
who need it the least.
So here are the questions: IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO LET THE TAX CUTS FOR THE 99% AREN'T THEY RAISING OUR TAXES???? DOESN'T THAT EFFECTIVELY RAISE TAXES ON THE 99%??? IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT WHY ARE THEY FIGHTING SO HARD FOR TAX BREAKS FOR BILLIONAIRES THAT HAVE PRIVATE (CORPORATE) JETS???
It's because we aren't people to them. They want to steal our right to vote, let billionaires BUY OUR ELECTIONS, and take so much of our money and so many of our jobs that the middle class will be a thing of the past.
So vote for a republican and watch them take your money....or vote for a democrat
because they're the ones who have been fighting for the 99%. When you think of
it, it all breaks down to who is watching out for the 99%????? Answer: NOT REPUBLICANS.