• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

haymarket said:
It is the -- get ready for a word you may not like ..... REALITY of the situation. President Bush and his GOP controlled Congress raised the tax rates and set the date of Jan. 1 of 2011 as that date.
Click to expand...

Nice revisionist history, better check who controlled the Congress in 2001-2002 when the law was passed and then how he got 60 votes in the Senate in 2003. The reality of the situation is that Democrats had overwhelming numbers the last 2 years and did nothing. Further when the GOP takes control of the House in January 2011 they will pass a bill to restore those tax rates if it isn't passed by then. Obama and the Democrats will be on record as raising taxes on all Americans.
 
Conservative said:
Nice revisionist history, better check who controlled the Congress in 2001-2002 when the law was passed and then how he got 60 votes in the Senate in 2003. The reality of the situation is that Democrats had overwhelming numbers the last 2 years and did nothing. Further when the GOP takes control of the House in January 2011 they will pass a bill to restore those tax rates if it isn't passed by then. Obama and the Democrats will be on record as raising taxes on all Americans.
Click to expand...

You check your own history please. The Republicans controlled the Presidency, they controlled the House and there was a tie in the Senate but controlled it through the VP who was a Republican. Jeffords did not switch until after the Bush tax cuts in 2001. When more were passed in 2003, the GOP also controlled all three.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
 
haymarket said:
You check your own history please. The Republicans controlled the Presidency, they controlled the House and there was a tie in the Senate but controlled it through the VP who was a Republican. Jeffords did not switch until after the Bush tax cuts in 2001. When more were passed in 2003, the GOP also controlled all three.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
Click to expand...

Since it takes 60 votes to get anything out of the Senate there was no GOP Control. When the GOP took control they did indeed implement withholding cuts but still didn't have 60 votes to get a permanent cut in place.
 
Barbbtx said:
House Dems reject Obama's tax plan - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com

Nancy and her ilk opposed first, even though 99% of it they were for.
Click to expand...

Uhh are you looking at the same bill that I'm looking at? The Democrats supported 99% of it? What in God's name are you talking about? The bill was a massive extension of the Bush tax cuts and a lower estate tax, and in exchange the Democrats got...an extension of unemployment benefits. Whoa. I'm so impressed. What an awesome deal. Yeah, I have no idea why Democrats would be opposed to that. :roll:
 
Barbbtx said:
And the fact is, it's the dems who came out STRONGLY against the bill.
Demint came out later.
Click to expand...

The difference, of course, is that the Democrats had a good REASON to oppose it, as it goes directly against what they think is the best policy. DeMint opposed it for childish reasons, because he only got 99% of what he wanted.

But you know what, you're right. Maybe DeMint's on to something here. I suggest all the conservatives here write to their congressmen and urge them to follow DeMint's lead and oppose the bill.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
Why does everything the dems try to do turn into a huge bill full of tons of BS, job killers, future entitlements, good chances of fraud and corruption and then get upset when republicans don't go along?
Click to expand...

because the dems have to spend other peoples' money to get elected. we who produce wealth mainly vote for the GOP. those who want to take wealth from others vote for the dems mainly. and the way the dems keep their bots voting for them is giving those voters handouts
 
haymarket said:
You check your own history please. The Republicans controlled the Presidency, they controlled the House and there was a tie in the Senate but controlled it through the VP who was a Republican. Jeffords did not switch until after the Bush tax cuts in 2001. When more were passed in 2003, the GOP also controlled all three.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
Click to expand...

I guess you are ignorant of the filibuster and after Jeffords flipped the dems got control of the congress back for a time
 
Kandahar said:
The difference, of course, is that the Democrats had a good REASON to oppose it, as it goes directly against what they think is the best policy. DeMint opposed it for childish reasons, because he only got 99% of what he wanted.

But you know what, you're right. Maybe DeMint's on to something here. I suggest all the conservatives here write to their congressmen and urge them to follow DeMint's lead and oppose the bill.
Click to expand...

I hope they do oppose the bill and will come back in bigger numbers in January with a better bill. Extending unemployment another 13 months is outrageous and is a real expense that has to be paid for. Tax cuts are a trumped up expense that doesn't exist unless you can explain to me how you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
 
Kandahar said:
The difference, of course, is that the Democrats had a good REASON to oppose it, as it goes directly against what they think is the best policy. DeMint opposed it for childish reasons, because he only got 99% of what he wanted.

But you know what, you're right. Maybe DeMint's on to something here. I suggest all the conservatives here write to their congressmen and urge them to follow DeMint's lead and oppose the bill.
Click to expand...

lets cut the crap

the dems win alot of votes from the envious by screaming about the "rich" getting GOP tax cuts. YET THE DEMS HAD COMPLETE CONTROL FOR TWO YEARS and did not repeal the bush tax RATES on the rich. WHY? Because many of the dems realized such a move would really F up the economy. So the dems whined about the rich and demonized the Bush tax rates while not making any effort to actually change them.

WE CAN PROVE that the employment benefits is a COST to us while the haters of the rich cannot prove that tax hikes will actually pay down the deficit given the FACT that the dems have to keep handing out entitlements to win votes. FURTHERMORE, the dems have been proven liars on this issue-for years those turds in DC have claimed that the BUSH Tax rates ONLY HELPED THE RICH yet these same turds are now claiming that the tax breaks all but the rich got are GREAT and need to be continued.

so tell us supporters of your rich dem masters who buy your votes with their spending and attacks on other rich people, why didnt your masters change the Bush tax rates in the last two years?
 
Conservative said:
I hope they do oppose the bill and will come back in bigger numbers in January with a better bill. Extending unemployment another 13 months is outrageous and is a real expense that has to be paid for. Tax cuts are a trumped up expense that doesn't exist unless you can explain to me how you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
Click to expand...

No, I completely agree. Horrible idea. Please complain loudly to your congressman and ensure he helps to scuttle the deal.
 
TurtleDude said:
lets cut the crap

the dems win alot of votes from the envious by screaming about the "rich" getting GOP tax cuts. YET THE DEMS HAD COMPLETE CONTROL FOR TWO YEARS and did not repeal the bush tax RATES on the rich. WHY? Because many of the dems realized such a move would really F up the economy. So the dems whined about the rich and demonized the Bush tax rates while not making any effort to actually change them.
Click to expand...

Because they were set to expire anyway, so there was no REASON to make a big stink about them just to end them a year earlier. Now Obama and his Republican friends want to extend them; that's a much bigger problem.

TurtleDude said:
WE CAN PROVE that the employment benefits is a COST to us while the haters of the rich cannot prove that tax hikes will actually pay down the deficit given the FACT that the dems have to keep handing out entitlements to win votes. FURTHERMORE, the dems have been proven liars on this issue-for years those turds in DC have claimed that the BUSH Tax rates ONLY HELPED THE RICH yet these same turds are now claiming that the tax breaks all but the rich got are GREAT and need to be continued.
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see the disconnect here. They want the tax cuts for the rich to end, and the tax cuts for everyone else to continue. What part of that is confusing you?

TurtleDude said:
so tell us supporters of your rich dem masters who buy your votes with their spending and attacks on other rich people, why didnt your masters change the Bush tax rates in the last two years?
Click to expand...

Because that would have required spending political capital on something that was going to end soon anyway. Extending them is a whole different matter.

And for the record: I'm not even necessarily opposed to a compromise where the tax cuts for the wealthy are extended for another year or two...as long as the Democrats get some kind of worthwhile stimulus spending in exchange. And capitulation on the estate tax was just gratuitous and disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Because they were set to expire anyway, so there was no REASON to make a big stink about them just to end them a year earlier. Now Obama and his Republican friends want to extend them; that's a much bigger problem.



I'm failing to see the disconnect here. They want the tax cuts for the rich to end, and the tax cuts for everyone else to continue. What part of that is confusing you?



Because that would have required spending political capital on something that was going to end soon anyway. Extending them is a whole different matter.

And for the record: I'm not even necessarily opposed to a compromise where the tax cuts for the wealthy are extended for another year or two...as long as the Democrats get some kind of worthwhile stimulus spending in exchange. And capitulation on the estate tax was just gratuitous and disgusting.
Click to expand...

that's lame--the dems have been howling like stuck pigs how bad the tax rates for the rich were-you are trying to justify political cowardice.

why do the dems hate people who are thrifty and save for their children. 55% on top of income that was taxed at a third or more? Good God that is what is really disgusting.

you are playing stupid if you don't see the point about tax rates for everyone but the top 2% remaining--your dem masters claimed that only the rich benefited from those BUsh rates. So restoring the CLinton levels on those 98% wouldn't be deleterious since the original cuts provided no benefit
 
TurtleDude said:
that's lame--the dems have been howling like stuck pigs how bad the tax rates for the rich were-you are trying to justify political cowardice.
Click to expand...

No, political pragmatism. Why WOULD they want to create a big fuss just to make the Bush tax cuts expire a year earlier? They had more important things to worry about than an extra year of tax cuts. Actively working to extend them is a whole different ballgame.

TurtleDude said:
why do the dems hate people who are thrifty and save for their children. 55% on top of income that was taxed at a third or more? Good God that is what is really disgusting.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, the poor rich folk. In a nation with a very high GDP per capita and a very high degree of wealth disparity, you have it pretty rough in this country, don't you. :roll:

TurtleDude said:
you are playing stupid if you don't see the point about tax rates for everyone but the top 2% remaining--your dem masters claimed that only the rich benefited from those BUsh rates. So restoring the CLinton levels on those 98% wouldn't be deleterious since the original cuts provided no benefit
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you imagine that the Democrats claimed, the fact is that middle-class tax cuts are significantly more stimulative for the economy than tax cuts for the wealthy, because the money is more likely to be spent.
 
Kandahar said:
No, political pragmatism. Why WOULD they want to create a big fuss just to make the Bush tax cuts expire a year earlier? They had more important things to worry about than an extra year of tax cuts. Actively working to extend them is a whole different ballgame.



Yes yes, the poor rich folk. In a nation with a very high GDP per capita and a very high degree of wealth disparity, you have it pretty rough in this country, don't you. :roll:



Regardless of what you imagine that the Democrats claimed, the fact is that middle-class tax cuts are significantly more stimulative for the economy than tax cuts for the wealthy, because the money is more likely to be spent.
Click to expand...

political pragmatism? I guess that is one way of hiding behind their words and not acting.

why didn't you dems claim that those Bush rates for the middle class were useful in 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09?

I love your attitude towards the rich--nothing screams LOSER louder
 
Kandahar said:
No, political pragmatism. Why WOULD they want to create a big fuss just to make the Bush tax cuts expire a year earlier? They had more important things to worry about than an extra year of tax cuts. Actively working to extend them is a whole different ballgame.



Yes yes, the poor rich folk. In a nation with a very high GDP per capita and a very high degree of wealth disparity, you have it pretty rough in this country, don't you. :roll:



Regardless of what you imagine that the Democrats claimed, the fact is that middle-class tax cuts are significantly more stimulative for the economy than tax cuts for the wealthy, because the money is more likely to be spent.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts stimulative? No, say it isn't so? Middle Class tax cuts by the liberal standards also add more to the debt than the tax cuts on the rich but of course no one is talking about paying for those tax cuts, wonder why? Still waiting for someone to explain to me how an individual taxpayer keeping more of what THEY earn is an expense to the govt. thus has to be paid for? How about an answer?
 
Conservative said:
Since it takes 60 votes to get anything out of the Senate there was no GOP Control. When the GOP took control they did indeed implement withholding cuts but still didn't have 60 votes to get a permanent cut in place.
Click to expand...

You and Turtle are very confused (surprise surprise) with the current Senate and how the Republicans have used the 60 vote threshold in a historically unprecedented way to thwart the elected majority and to impose a phony fillibuster provision on everything. That was not the case in the Congress a decade ago.

The Republicans did indeed control it during the passage of the tax cuts via the vote of the Vice President.
 
Conservative said:
Tax cuts stimulative? No, say it isn't so? Middle Class tax cuts by the liberal standards also add more to the debt than the tax cuts on the rich but of course no one is talking about paying for those tax cuts, wonder why? Still waiting for someone to explain to me how an individual taxpayer keeping more of what THEY earn is an expense to the govt. thus has to be paid for? How about an answer?
Click to expand...

lets be honest

the middle and lower classes ( the ones who actually pay some federal income tax either at the current rates or if the BUsh rates are erased) have far more VOTES than the top 2%. That is the only reason why the dems pretend NOW that the Bush rates are now GOOD for the bottom 98% and is not bad for the deficit.
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you are ignorant of the filibuster and after Jeffords flipped the dems got control of the congress back for a time
Click to expand...

The ignorant one is you. When the tax cut was passed the Senate was 50 to 50 with Cheney breaking the tie giving the GOP control of the issue. Jeffords flip came later.
 
haymarket said:
You and Turtle are very confused (surprise surprise) with the current Senate and how the Republicans have used the 60 vote threshold in a historically unprecedented way to thwart the elected majority and to impose a phony fillibuster provision on everything. That was not the case in the Congress a decade ago.

The Republicans did indeed control it during the passage of the tax cuts via the vote of the Vice President.
Click to expand...

so the dems didn't have at least 41 votes then?
 
haymarket said:
You and Turtle are very confused (surprise surprise) with the current Senate and how the Republicans have used the 60 vote threshold in a historically unprecedented way to thwart the elected majority and to impose a phony fillibuster provision on everything. That was not the case in the Congress a decade ago.

The Republicans did indeed control it during the passage of the tax cuts via the vote of the Vice President.
Click to expand...

The only way the Republicans could get the tax cuts through was with a sunset. They wanted a permanent reduction but the Democrats wouldn't let that through so wha tis your point? A filibuster would have occurred without the sunset and that is what you are ignoring.
 
haymarket said:
The ignorant one is you. When the tax cut was passed the Senate was 50 to 50 with Cheney breaking the tie giving the GOP control of the issue. Jeffords flip came later.
Click to expand...

so the dems didn't have 41 votes then.
 
Conservative said:
The only way the Republicans could get the tax cuts through was with a sunset. They wanted a permanent reduction but the Democrats wouldn't let that through so wha tis your point? A filibuster would have occurred without the sunset and that is what you are ignoring.
Click to expand...

and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

But all this is but a side issue to the fact that the tax raises were passed by the Congress in 2001 under President Bush.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

But all this is but a side issue to the fact that the tax raises were passed by the Congress in 2001 under President Bush.
Click to expand...

You are the one confused as you ignore the final vote with the process of getting the bill to the floor. In order for cloture there has to be 60 votes and in order to get that the Republicans had to agree to a sunset and then when it got to the floor the final vote is taken and that doesn't require 60 votes. There were two tax cuts, the rebates of 2001 and the withholding rate cuts in 2003. It is the 2003 taxes that are being extended.
 
haymarket said:
and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

But all this is but a side issue to the fact that the tax raises were passed by the Congress in 2001 under President Bush.
Click to expand...

and the only way the GOP could prevent a dem filibuster was to have a sunset provision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom