House Passes Middle-Class Tax Cut as Dems, GOP Try to Reach Compromise

Eighty Deuce said:

It does not get much more uninformed than that. That is liberal bass-ackward mantra. No wonder the Democrats screwed things up so bad.

Click to expand...

Feel free to correct me.... if you know how (I will not hold my breadth).

You can not like my arguments or my conclusions, but they are not based on ignorance. Given you could show nothing by shallow insults in retort, the jury remains out on you.

Barbbtx said:

[/B]I know why. It was to discourage charitable giving and to cause more dependence on government from those down on their luck. A case for growing the government is all this administration cares about.

Click to expand...

absolutely right. anything that makes someone less dependent on the government is anathema to the left

upsideguy;1059140867]Though you are correct that 6.5 million jobs were created during the Bush years, it really isn't that relevant as the economy was collapsing in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009, as the presidency was transferring. In reality, most, if not all of the job loss is attributable to Bush. Of course, if you really want to use job gain as a measure of economic success of a president, then no president was more successful on that front than Jimmy Carter as more than 10 million jobs were created during his presidency (which was 4 years, or half that of Bush)....

Click to expand...

Sorry but bea.gov disagrees with you and that is the non partisan agency that records economic growth. The economy wasn't collapsing in the fourth qtr of 2008 because that is the quarter that TARP was implemented. Not sure where you get your information but I suggest non partisan sites and not leftwing sites that you apparently use. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify. I don't believe politicians of either side so give me just the facts. The recession ended in June 2009 and Obama has lost more jobs in 2010 than were lost in 2009.

If you are truly worried about the deficit, it is really hard to argue with much credibility in favor of extending tax cuts to the highest income individuals. By extending such tax breaks you will certainly compromise government revenue at a time when many worry about deficits with indeterminate, if any, benefit. You can easily raise these taxes and then offer job creation credits to those few that actually do create jobs. Of course, no conservatives advocate such as they 1) are not truly worried about job creation; 2) are not really that worried about the deficit and 3) do not really believe their rhetoric that tax cuts stimulate an economy or they would be in favor of getting the tax cuts that everyone agrees upon done..... they are ONLY interested in their self interests.

Click to expand...

I learned a long time ago not to believe the Obama Administration or any Federal Bureaucrat who claims they will take any tax revenue increase and pay down the deficit or the debt. Obama has yet to be accurate on any prediction so tell me why you believe him now?

I asked a question and no one seems to want to answer, we have 16 million plus unemployed in this country, how does raising taxes on the rich put anyone back to work and paying taxes?

I am concerned about job creation, not expansion of the size of govt. which has happened the past two years. yes, I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy and if you would simply look at your own life you would see why. Tax cuts put more spendable income into your pockets giving you the choice what to do with it. Many spend that money and that increases demand and thus new jobs. That happened in 2003-2007 when Bush created 8.5 million jobs. Reagan cut taxes 10-10-5% over three years, doubled govt. revenue and created 18 million jobs. WE have an economy built on the private sector, individual wealth creation, and profits. Demonizing any of those serves no purpose other than to increase the control of the govt. and that just creates debt.

Eighty Deuce said:

Gimme a break. Clinton got reined-in by the Republican House after the '94 elections on fiscal policy, then rode the dot-com boom. Then handed W a recession when dot-com went bust.

Click to expand...

What so something other then taxes can be responsible for economic growth

My god I would have never have known by the way Conservative talks

pbrauer said:

And Bush handed Obama with a much deeper recession.

Click to expand...

If he did how did we get out in June 2009? NBER disagrees with you.

TurtleDude said:

so explain to me why dems want to make giving to charities more expensive

Click to expand...

I am not certain what specific democratic initiative you are referring, but I for one believe our tax policies should highly encourage charitible giving. I would be against any efforts to reign in incentives for individuals to give.

TurtleDude said:

some charities did lobby to keep the taxes up-and some wanted the death taxes to continue at a punitive rate for that reason. Of course in some cases that didn't help them-I know of a local charity that lobbied against Bush's cuts to the death tax that got slammed when would be donors decided to punish the charity for its support of massive death taxes.

Click to expand...

I did not know that.

pbrauer said:

The Wall Street Journal says you are wrong about the jobs being there two years ago.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Click to expand...

You seem to ignore bls.gov, why is that?

Employment by month from BLS.gov


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888

I posted the Reagan numbers so that those that continue to distort the Reagan record or want to compare Obama to Reagan can see how wrong they were. Don't know why I post numbers because you ignore them.

pbrauer said:

The Wall Street Journal says you are wrong about the jobs being there two years ago.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Click to expand...

It must truly be Greek to liberals, and I thought I was joking ! Your link shows the entire net for W from beginning to end. Prior to the housing burst, he created over 6 million jobs. What I said was that prior to the housing crash, we had plenty of jobs, as you had made a pointless claim about manufacturing in the 80's. If Obama had followed better policies, or if and when a President does, we get those jobs back. Doh !!

upsideguy said:

I am not certain what specific democratic initiative you are referring, but I for one believe our tax policies should highly encourage charitible giving. I would be against any efforts to reign in incentives for individuals to give.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I suppose this easily torpedo's turtle's overgeneralized statement about liberals. Then again, torpedoing overgeneralized statements is always pretty easy.

upsideguy said:

Actually higher tax rates actually promote charitable contributions. As taxes increase, the value of the deduction increases. People have higher motivation to give to the charity of their choice rather than give money to the government.

Click to expand...

Used to be the case because charitable giving was totally tax deductable, now too much documentation required and that has hurt contributions during high tax periods.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I agree with you. I suppose this easily torpedo's turtle's overgeneralized statement about liberals. Then again, torpedoing overgeneralized statements is always pretty easy.

Click to expand...

the fact that the obama administration has called for cut backs in tax deductions for charitable contributions is a far stronger support for my claim than someone who claims to be a liberal on a board like this

Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism - Today's News - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas


President Obama proposed limiting the value of the tax break for itemized deductions, including donations to charity, to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000. In other words, taxpayers would save 28 cents on their federal income taxes for each dollar donated.

That would reduce by as much as 20 percent the amount wealthy taxpayers could get in tax breaks. Under the current system, taxpayers who are in the 33 percent or 35 percent tax brackets use that rate to claim deductions.

TurtleDude said:

the fact that the obama administration has called for cut backs in tax deductions for charitable contributions is a far stronger support for my claim than someone who claims to be a liberal on a board like this

Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism - Today's News - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas


President Obama proposed limiting the value of the tax break for itemized deductions, including donations to charity, to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000. In other words, taxpayers would save 28 cents on their federal income taxes for each dollar donated.

That would reduce by as much as 20 percent the amount wealthy taxpayers could get in tax breaks. Under the current system, taxpayers who are in the 33 percent or 35 percent tax brackets use that rate to claim deductions.

Click to expand...

So, it might be a good idea to qualify your statements to limit them to what Obama and folks on Capital Hill think. I disagree with Obama's plan. Though I do not believe that charity is the ultimate answer, government should NEVER dissaude charitible donations, and cutting deductions do just that. Painting it as a general liberal agenda makes no sense.

pbrauer said:

And Bush handed Obama with a much deeper recession.

Click to expand...

Just like it's stupid to blame Obama for this recession, it was stupid to blame Bush for the 9/11-dotcom recession. Yet you continue to do one while decrying the other.

CaptainCourtesy said:

So, it might be a good idea to qualify your statements to limit them to what Obama and folks on Capital Hill think. I disagree with Obama's plan. Though I do not believe that charity is the ultimate answer, government should NEVER dissaude charitible donations, and cutting deductions do just that. Painting it as a general liberal agenda makes no sense.

Click to expand...

So do you believe it is the natioal taxpayer's responsibility to give money to a bureaucrat in D.C. to spend on solving a problem in Boise, Idaho? What seems to be at conflict here is the role of the Federal Govt. vs. the role of the state and local communities. Some want that large central govt. whereas I want a smaller central govt. with responsibility back where it belongs, the state and local communities. I don't understand how anyone can expect effecient use of taxpayer dollars on local social issues.

Also what a lot of people don't understand is that the National Taxpayer is paying for the unemployment extensions in states all over the country instead of letting the states figure out how to solve their own problems. The liberal answer is to raise taxes on the top 2% not realizing that is a drop in the bucket and actually a waste of money.

RightinNYC said:

Just like it's stupid to blame Obama for this recession, it was stupid to blame Bush for the 9/11-dotcom recession. Yet you continue to do one while decrying the other.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, the problem I have with Obama is the economic plan he put into place to grow jobs and the economy after the recession ended in June 2009. This is now an officially a jobless recovery and that is totally due to the economic policy of Obama that did nothing to promote the private sector. His tax cuts were targeted and came with strings and the rest of his stimulus program was to bailout Democrat constituent groups that were actually state responsibilities.

Obama didn't cause the 2007-2009 recession but Obama is responsible for implementing policies that led to a jobless recovery.

Conservative said:

So do you believe it is the natioal taxpayer's responsibility to give money to a bureaucrat in D.C. to spend on solving a problem in Boise, Idaho? What seems to be at conflict here is the role of the Federal Govt. vs. the role of the state and local communities. Some want that large central govt. whereas I want a smaller central govt. with responsibility back where it belongs, the state and local communities. I don't understand how anyone can expect effecient use of taxpayer dollars on local social issues.

Click to expand...

I support a strong federal government. A strong centeral government creates more unification of services. I want far more efficiency and I want folks in charge who actually have credentials to make the kinds of decisions that they are making... not people who get the job because of politics.

Also what a lot of people don't understand is that the National Taxpayer is paying for the unemployment extensions in states all over the country instead of letting the states figure out how to solve their own problems. The liberal answer is to raise taxes on the top 2% not realizing that is a drop in the bucket and actually a waste of money.

Click to expand...

And this has nothing to do with what I posted.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I support a strong federal government. A strong centeral government creates more unification of services. I want far more efficiency and I want folks in charge who actually have credentials to make the kinds of decisions that they are making... not people who get the job because of politics.



And this has nothing to do with what I posted.

Click to expand...

The problem is this country wasn't built on that foundation as we have now 50 or maybe 58 sovereign states if Obama is right which makes a strong central govt. administering social programs impossible. Your comments were about charities and that is what I responded to.

TurtleDude said:

its the point of a gun. try again

Click to expand...

so now we give the death penalty for non payment of ones income taxes?

even for you this is really over the top. Perhaps it is caviar overload combined with too much Dom Perignon ?

Conservative said:

The problem is this country wasn't built on that foundation as we have now 50 or maybe 58 sovereign states if Obama is right which makes a strong central govt. administering social programs impossible. Your comments were about charities and that is what I responded to.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Administering programs from a strong central government is entirely possible. They keys would be streamlining, efficiency, and organization. Now, things would need to trickle down to the local level, of course.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I disagree. Administering programs from a strong central government is entirely possible. They keys would be streamlining, efficiency, and organization. Now, things would need to trickle down to the local level, of course.

Click to expand...

Not without usurping the authority and responsibility of the states. How does a strong central govt. administer social programs at the local level without waste, fraud, abuse, and high govt. overhead? Promoting the Domestic Welfare is a far cry from Providing for the Domestic Welfare.

Right now a couple dozen states have filed suits against Obamacare and the govt. mandate. You also have state taxes that fund local services so on top of that you want the Federal Govt. and Federal Tax dollars doing the same thing. That is one of the reasons we are in this mess, duplicate responsibilities and thus duplicate expenses. In a country of 310 million people one size doesn't fit all and all social programs should be left up to the states.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I disagree. Administering programs from a strong central government is entirely possible. They keys would be streamlining, efficiency, and organization. Now, things would need to trickle down to the local level, of course.

Click to expand...

In theory, but in the entirety of the Republic, the track record for the effective administering of virtually any program is miserable. Whether seeped in bueaucratic waste, multiple layers of inefficiency, spoils, and then becoming vehicles by which to purchase votes, big government has made a disaster of it all. One can say all they want about making it "steamlined and efficient", but it has never happened, or if it has its been lost as the exception. Success seems more achievable when the programs have been administered as close to local as possible.

Its like Reagan said. "The nine most feared words are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'".

Eighty Deuce said:

In theory, but in the entirety of the Republic, the track record for the effective administering of virtually any program is miserable. Whether seeped in bueaucratic waste, multiple layers of inefficiency, spoils, and then becoming vehicles by which to purchase votes, big government has made a disaster of it all. One can say all they want about making it "steamlined and efficient", but it has never happened, or if it has its been lost as the exception. Success seems more achievable when the programs have been administered as close to local as possible.

Its like Reagan said. "The nine most feared words are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'".

Click to expand...

All anyone really has to do is look at the Great Society and the trillions wasted there. We have a 14 trillion dollar debt that many want to blame on the so called unfunded wars when the reality most of that is due to the costs of the Great Society and other liberal feel good social programs that are really state and local responsibilities.

Conservative said:

Not without usurping the authority and responsibility of the states. How does a strong central govt. administer social programs at the local level without waste, fraud, abuse, and high govt. overhead? Promoting the Domestic Welfare is a far cry from Providing for the Domestic Welfare.

Right now a couple dozen states have filed suits against Obamacare and the govt. mandate. You also have state taxes that fund local services so on top of that you want the Federal Govt. and Federal Tax dollars doing the same thing. That is one of the reasons we are in this mess, duplicate responsibilities and thus duplicate expenses. In a country of 310 million people one size doesn't fit all and all social programs should be left up to the states.

Click to expand...

I'm OK with the central government having more authority than the states. And the central government will be the administrators with the local governments working under them.

And I agree with the problem of duplicate responsibilities and services being a problem. Streamline them. Central government is the adminstrators and directors, the local government impliments the policies.

Eighty Deuce said:

In theory, but in the entirety of the Republic, the track record for the effective administering of virtually any program is miserable. Whether seeped in bueaucratic waste, multiple layers of inefficiency, spoils, and then becoming vehicles by which to purchase votes, big government has made a disaster of it all. One can say all they want about making it "steamlined and efficient", but it has never happened, or if it has its been lost as the exception. Success seems more achievable when the programs have been administered as close to local as possible.

Click to expand...

Probably hasn't happened because it is so often so bogged down with political wranglings that efficiency comes a distant second. Also, most folks who manage things are political appointees. This has always been distasterous. Look at the Civil War. Some of the early losses the Union suffered were due to Lincoln giving generalships to political appointees. Once West Pointers were in charge, things went much better. Government needs to drop the partisanship and put the best people in charge.

And though success may be achievable on the local level, it is only acheivable on a small scale. Take the successful local programs, make them national, and put those who actually made them sucessful, in charge.

Its like Reagan said. "The nine most feared words are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'".

Click to expand...

Yeah, I never bought into that statement. It's a nice anti-government talking point, but the government is certainly helpful at times.