Tax hikes on working people OK; tax hike on the rich not OK

Yesterday, most Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic proposal to extend and expand a reduction in the payroll tax. (The cut, due to expire at the end of the month, would put roughly $1,500 a year into the paycheck of 160 million working Americans next year.) Thanks to GOP opposition, a bill to extend the cut was defeated by a vote of 51-49, meaning it failed to meet the artificial 60-vote margin imposed in that body these days. (One Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, voted for it).

Riddle me this, Batman: When is a tax hike NOT a tax hike?

Riddle me this, Batman: When is a tax hike NOT a tax hike?

OK, you say. That’s not surprising. It was a Democratic plan, so of course Republicans voted against it. However, a majority of those Senate Republicans then turned around and also voted against their own party’s proposal to extend the payroll tax, killing it 20-78. (That plan was funded in part by cutting food stamps and unemployment benefits.)

You may recall that according to Republicans, extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires was an absolute necessity. In fact, failing to extend that tax cut for the rich would have amounted to a tax increase and was thus verboten. At least, that was the ruling of Grover Norquist, the unelected Washington lobbyist to whom most Republicans have outsourced such determinations.

So, that leads to a question:

Why is failing to extend a temporary tax cut to millionaires considered a tax increase, while failing to extend a temporary tax cut for working people is somehow NOT a tax increase? Why is one unacceptable, and the other unacceptable?

What a silly silly question. Because Grover Norquist told them so, that’s why. As Norquist told reporters after a closed-door session with House Republicans Thursday, “For the president to run around and say not continuing a temporary tax cut is an increase is inaccurate.”

And that’s that.

House Speaker John Boehner, asked whether the tax increase on working Americans would hurt the recovery, demonstrated a rare moment of humility. “I’m not an economist,” he said. “I don’t know what impact it’s going to have on the economy.” That was odd coming from a man who has never previously shied away from bold proclamations about the economic impact of various proposals.

That’s OK though. If Boehner isn’t an economist, other people are. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, predicts that a failure to extend the tax cut would result in a decline of real GDP growth “by nearly a percentage point and about one million jobs lost by the end of 2012.” According to The Washington Post, “Goldman Sachs economic forecaster Alec Phillips estimated that allowing the payroll tax cut to expire would reduce growth by as much as two-thirds of a percentage point in early 2012. Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that it would reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percent and cost the economy 400,000 jobs by the fourth quarter.”

According to economists, a payroll tax cut has a much more positive impact on the economy than a similar size cut in taxes for the rich. Average working Americans, given an additional $1,500, will spend it, adding much-needed demand to the economy. More affluent Americans, given a tax cut, will tend to sock it away somewhere, adding to the trillions of dollars in capital already sitting on the sidelines in this economy.

But again, since that’s not how Pope Grover I sees it, I guess it doesn’t matter. This is his country, and we just happen to live here.

– Jay Bookman

470 comments Add your comment

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
8:15 am

Every time a working man or woman looks at his or hers diminished paycheck, the anger will rise and the Republicans will pay at the polls, Good job, GOP, you just gave the White House and Congress back to the Democrats. Good job, indeed!

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:17 am

Working people get most of the benefits

Mick

December 2nd, 2011
8:18 am

It’s a crying shame that we are at this point in history. Because of this gov’t and the people that are running it, I have my exit strategy mapped out. No wonder jeremiah johnson became a mountain man, if you look at a map of the yukon, it’s still possible….

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
8:19 am

jm,
you’re a hoot. Are you that rich that you can afford up to 1500 dollars less a year? If not you are an idiot to support this.

Granny Godzilla

December 2nd, 2011
8:20 am

Working people deserve most of the benefits.

Adam

December 2nd, 2011
8:22 am

So basically they are against taxing the rich. Who’da thunk it?

Of course none of this matters because the conservative machine will frame it with whatever words they think will win them votes, and Democrats will NOT do the same because they have next to no media outlet or organization compared to the prevalent and widespread conservative media bias.

[...] Tax hikes on working people OK; tax hike on the rich not OKAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Yesterday, most Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic proposal to extend and expand a reduction in the payroll tax. (The cut, due to expire at the end of the month, would put roughly $ 1500 a year into the paycheck of 160 million working …Next Moves Unclear on Payroll Tax CutTIMEall 3 news articles » [...]

Brosephus

December 2nd, 2011
8:23 am

Doesn’t surprise me to hear that at all. What needs to happen is that people need to get rid of every damn incumbent in office, even those running unopposed. Use write-ins or whatever it takes. We need people with common sense to make decisions that will help the many as opposed to looking out for the interests of the few.

Buncha jackasses….

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:23 am

Gotta pay for the government u want

Democrats won’t cut spending

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 2nd, 2011
8:25 am

Hmmmm… why I am sure that we’ll hear today about “you don’t raise taxes during a downturn”**

** — except if it is a tax on anyone other than the rich.

Adam

December 2nd, 2011
8:26 am

You cons could use a lesson from Frank Luntz on here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/gop-pollster-frank-luntz-admits-it-taxing-the-rich-is-popular/2011/12/01/gIQAOgBJHO_blog.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/201112010018

Maybe if you did you might win more arguments. Not that I want to help guide you away from outright stupidity and into calculated manipulation….

Granny Godzilla

December 2nd, 2011
8:26 am

Jm

Democrats are more than willing to cut defense spending, so was the GOP during the debt ceiling debate, NOW the GOP
is playing bait and switch with that as we speak.

Fly-On-The-Wall

December 2nd, 2011
8:26 am

I just do not understand their logic. I’ve yet to hear a good reason why this isn’t good for the country.

But remember that Americans have a short memory so if this fails to pass and the economic impact happens as predicted then voters will be hit the worst by the time of the November election so they’ll vote against the President – or so the Republicans hope.

Adam

December 2nd, 2011
8:29 am

So Norquist says: “For the president to run around and say not continuing a temporary tax cut is an increase is inaccurate.”

Oh, I see, it’s only a tax hike if YOU say it is, eh Grover?

Finn McCool

December 2nd, 2011
8:30 am

Working people get most of the benefits

LOL, the Kool-Aid is being drunk early this morning.

barking frog

December 2nd, 2011
8:31 am

Defunding SS and medicare by stopping the payroll tax
is not a good idea unless it is made up from the general
fund down the road and I know of no such provision. A
couple more years of the tax cuts is no big deal. Permanent
tax cuts are silly.

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
8:32 am

A $662 billion defense bill doesn’t sound like spending cuts to me, just saying. What the GOP really wants is a “Have/Have Not” society. No more democracy, no more personal freedom, if you are not a “Have”.

Adam

December 2nd, 2011
8:32 am

Finn: Yeah I bet Rush and/or Hannity said that stupid line about working people getting the benefits just this morning.

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
8:32 am

Good morning, Jay –

since it’s a BEAUTIFUL DAY, I thought I’d share some nooo music with you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NFV8dHrZYM&ob=av2n

enjoy!!

(and, as my friend Kris said, it’s for the dancing sign guy in us all)

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
8:32 am

Barking, part of the deal on the existing payroll tax cut — and I assume in the proposals as well — is that the lost revenue is NOT counted against the trust funds.

Jimmy62

December 2nd, 2011
8:34 am

I’m ok with cutting payroll tax, in fact we should get rid of it altogether, it allowed the left to make false “lock box” claims about social security for far too long. Of course now that the concept of a lock box is no longer convenient, they say there never was one. Which is true, there wasn’t.

But back to the payroll tax…. Cutting the payroll tax makes taxes more regressive…. It creates a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. I know math is hard, but damn.

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:34 am

Inaccurate Jay

Boehner also said they would help stimulate the economy

Way to take comments out of context

I thought you were better than that

[...] Rejects Rival Payroll Tax Cut Plans as Vote Exposes GOP SplitFox NewsHuffington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,037 news [...]

barking frog

December 2nd, 2011
8:35 am

Jay, I was not aware of that, then it shouldn’t be a
problem even for republicans. Just politics.

[...] Rejects Rival Payroll Tax Cut Plans as Vote Exposes GOP SplitFox NewsHuffington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,034 news [...]

Jimmy62

December 2nd, 2011
8:37 am

When the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and I called it a tax increase, I was told by the left it wasn’t, and that extending it would be cutting taxes again. Now that this payroll tax is set to expire, the left wants to call it an increase. Funny how they change their definitions depending on what’s politically convenient.

Granny Godzilla

December 2nd, 2011
8:37 am

Unemployment drops to 8.6

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
8:37 am

Cutting the payroll tax makes taxes more regressive…. It creates a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. I know math is hard, but damn.

No, Jimmy, it doesn’t, for a variety of reasons. One, the payroll taxes cease after roughly $106,000 in earned income, so all earned income above that level is tax free anyway. So cutting those taxes doesn’t affect high-end earners much.

Second, payroll taxes aren’t charged at all on capital gains, interest income, stock dividends, etc. So again, high-income investors don’t benefit from a cut in payroll taxes, while working people do.

[...] Rejects Rival Payroll Tax Cut Plans as Vote Exposes GOP SplitFox NewsHuffington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,037 news [...]

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:39 am

More inaccuracies Jay

Norquist on meet the press last weekend said the payroll cut should be extended

Jay is full of falsehoods today

And pretty much everyday

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
8:40 am

GG – The jobless rate dropped to 8.6 percent, the lowest since March 2009, from 9 percent, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Payrolls climbed 120,000, with more than half the hiring coming from retailers and temporary help agencies, after a revised 100,000 rise in October that was more than initially estimated. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey called for a gain of 125,000.

not only was November a good gain, October’s gain was higher than originally thought …

go! go! go!

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
8:41 am

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
8:41 am

jm, Norquist saying the payroll tax cut should be extended does not contradict his statement that he won’t consider it a tax hike if it is NOT extended.

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:44 am

Normal 8:19
I want spending to be cut

But if Democrats won’t do that, I think we should have to pay for the expensive government rather than borrowing the money. Get that?

Oh. And my tax increase will be about $4,400. Pay up or start advocating for smaller government.

barking frog

December 2nd, 2011
8:45 am

USinUK, guess they called the right households this time..

[...] after Senate votes reveal GOP …Washington PostFox News -Huffington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,042 news [...]

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
8:45 am

That’s good news, USinUK. However, as the WSJ notes:

Friday’s report shows that Americans’ hourly earnings declined by 2 cents to $23.18. Wages are up by 1.8% over the past 12 months, not keeping pace with overall inflation at 3.6%.

Meanwhile, corporate profits remain near record highs.

Aquagirl

December 2nd, 2011
8:46 am

Norquist on meet the press last weekend said the payroll cut should be extended

Then why did his butt-monkeys jump to kill it?

Generation$crewed

December 2nd, 2011
8:46 am

We all need to pay more in taxes.

Eliminate all of the bush/obama tax cuts, and return tax levels to what they were under the clinton administration.

We all need to pay more. Its time everyone stopped wanting others to pay for the programs they want

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:47 am

Jay.

Well norquist also said he wouldn’t consider it a tax hike if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire

You seriously want to argue over norquist? Or do you want to argue over what’s good policy?

Granny Godzilla

December 2nd, 2011
8:47 am

So a majority of Republicans voted against the Democratic plan to extend the payroll tax cut, and a majority of Republicans voted against even the Republican plan to extend the payroll tax cut.

In other words, the Republicans don’t want to extend the payroll tax cut at all. They want to raise taxes on every single working American. Not just the middle class — if you have a job, the GOP just voted to raise your taxes for Christmas.

-John Aravosis

Seems herding the GOP is becoming a problem for John and Mitch.

[...] after Senate votes reveal GOP …Washington PostFox News -Huffington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,042 news [...]

carlosgvv

December 2nd, 2011
8:48 am

Taking care of the rich is the number one prioity of the Republicans. If failing to extend the tax cuts will result in the loss of one million jobs by the end of 2012, so what? As long as the rich are happy, Republican politicians are happy. They have made that crystal clear. What is impossible to understand is how these Republicans still have so many millions of middle class supporters. I know American is dumbing down, but this is ridiculous.

[...] Tax Cut Plans as Vote Exposes GOP SplitFox NewsWashington Post -Huffington Post (blog) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 3,042 news [...]

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
8:49 am

G$. Amen brother

TaxPayer

December 2nd, 2011
8:49 am

The labor force’s share of income — or the percentage of national income — fell to a nearly 60-year-low last quarter, according to data from the Federal Reserve bank of St. Louis.

Well, someone has to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest while also providing them the best military protection that the payroll taxed can afford. Don’t y’all care about the job creators! They have feelings too! :roll:

Stevie Ray

December 2nd, 2011
8:52 am

BROCEPHUS,

As the groupie in Almost Famous said…”it’s all happening”….The most important political event that needs to take place is as you state…THROW THEM ALL OUT. It’s also the name of a book I’ve mentioned here regarding specific corrupt activities involving insider trading, conflicts and cronyism. Sixty Minutes did a piece with author an CNN picked up on it last night. Pelosi looked like a deer in the headlights when confronted with VISA insider trading…

This is gonna be fun…especially if we demand past indescretions be disclosed along with bill going thru congress.

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
8:52 am

jm,
I have no problem paying my fair share as long as EVERY American does too. Otherwise I feel a little put upon as should you.

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
8:52 am

Jay – 8:45 – haven’t you heard???

it’s all the mooooslem sociamalist in the White House’s fault that corporations are doing so well but people aren’t!!

Aquagirl

December 2nd, 2011
8:53 am

You seriously want to argue over norquist?

Yes, because we aren’t trying to sweep him under the rug in embarrassment. He has a lot of power over Republicans, why wouldn’t he be a subject of discussion?

Sounds like somebody’s ashamed his GOP’s short hairs are in Norquist’s fat fingers.

Peadawg

December 2nd, 2011
8:53 am

I’m actually ok with this. Yes, it will hurt my wife and I’s paychecks next year but it’s time to pony up and start paying down our debt.

ty webb

December 2nd, 2011
8:54 am

“working” vs. “rich”…shouldn’t jay be “occupying” something with this crap?…good grief…how do sleep with that wet mattress?

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
8:54 am

Hey! Unemployment is down below 9%! Good news! (unless you are a Republican)

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
8:54 am

“You seriously want to argue over norquist?”

um, the person arguing over norquist (and losing) is you, dear.

Rightwing Troll

December 2nd, 2011
8:54 am

Up is down, down is up… cats living with dogs… it’s pandemonium!!!

These GOP congress critters will have a long future chinese acrobatics, as contortionist as they are…

Stevie Ray

December 2nd, 2011
8:54 am

JAY,

If you can muster the intestinal fortitude to rant on a bi-partisan basis, it would be a service to all if you could push hard to get as much of this exposed as possible. Check out the book….

The list of money making otherwise illegal deals is long, bipartisan and less than distiguished.

Butch Cassidy

December 2nd, 2011
8:55 am

I guess the GOP figures that losing 400,000 jobs in favor of protecting the rich isn’t a big problem. Afterall, by allowing the rich to keep more of their money, they can then hire the 400,000 displaced workers to mow their lawns and wash their cars, thereby “creating” jobs. Brilliiant! :)

Generation$crewed

December 2nd, 2011
8:55 am

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
8:52 am

You have previously been in favor of raising the taxes on a segment of the population, why is it different when you are included in the population?

Each and every working american will see their taxes go up through this. We have things we need to pay for or we need to cut them.

How is it a bad thing for everyone to have skin or extra skin in the game?

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
8:56 am

“Well norquist also said he wouldn’t consider it a tax hike if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.”

He did, jm? I’d really like to see a link supporting that one, if you don’t mind. Because I don’t believe he said any such thing.

In addition, we are forced to debate Norquist when we discuss policy these days, because he clearly dictates that policy.

lovelyliz

December 2nd, 2011
8:56 am

Haven’t you read the conservative’s prosperity gospel? if you are good then God blesses you with financial success on earth and if you have to actually work for a living you are being rightfully punished. They are only carrying on the will of God doncha know.

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
8:56 am

Hi USinUK –

First picture of this gallery….get ready for it….get the swooning couch pillows fluffed, you’re gonna need it:

http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/metro/news/today-pictures/111202weeksbestphotos/#thbz_hm

Tommy Maddox

December 2nd, 2011
8:57 am

By extending the “Bush Tax Cuts”, thereby making them the “Obama Tax Cuts”, and as with Stimulus, just look at all the jobs saved!!

Throw a party!! Yipee!!! Jobs saved!!!

Rightwing Troll

December 2nd, 2011
8:57 am

“You seriously want to argue over norquist? Or do you want to argue over what’s good policy?”

er…ahhhh…. Norquist is driving these contradictory policy decisions, why wouldn’t we want to discuss him?

Misty Fyed

December 2nd, 2011
8:58 am

Raise taxes on everyone equally. Balance the budget and pay down the debt. When the debt comes down reduce taxes. Offset any future tax cuts with service cuts. Otherwise, keep the tax rate at what is necessary to pay for Gov’t. Don’t expand gov’t unless you increase revenue to pay for it. When you detatch what it cost’s to pay for the gov’t from what tax payers actually pay, you get the mess we are in now. When you remove the burden of paying for govt from some people and try to place it on others, don’t be surprised when they push back.

Peadawg

December 2nd, 2011
8:58 am

“Unemployment is down below 9%! Good news!”

That is very good news. Good way to start a Friday.

Rightwing Troll

December 2nd, 2011
8:58 am

BTW, as much as I DESPISE Newt, he’s got the best ideas of the field, that includes Obama…

Brosephus

December 2nd, 2011
8:58 am

Stevie

If only people would open their eyes and see how badly this country is being screwed up by politicians. I don’t trust any of them any farther than I can throw them.

Welcome to the Occupation

December 2nd, 2011
8:58 am

Jm: “Working people get most of the benefits”

Lie.

Capital gets ALL the benefits. Work is taxed. Capital rides for free.

When the capitalists own your political system, that is.

Butch

December 2nd, 2011
8:59 am

Jay, Jay, Jay.

Democrats have a majority voting block in the Senate. The DEMOCRATS voted it down.

Stevie Ray

December 2nd, 2011
8:59 am

You have to admit it’s hilarious that we have 17 trillion (not including another 80 trillion or so in unfunded liabilities) in debt and we still have a checkbook….not an original statement but appropos for sure.

I certainly hope those ill affected middle class (can someone remind me if this is the 99%, 95%, 50% who pay nothing, 80%….just damn) havent’ been living too far beyond their means…

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
9:00 am

Granny 8:26

I beg to differ

Democrats were willing to make trivial immaterial cuts to spending, that’s it.

The evidence is significant. And Obama is on the same wavelength. The fish rots from the head down.

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
9:01 am

How is it a bad thing for everyone to have skin or extra skin in the game?

Ahhhhh, the ol’ “skin in the game” argument we see so many times here. I’ll just repost the wise words of our friend Paul to answer that question:

As I asked the questions, your answers avoiding a direct answer lead me to believe you know very well many of those 47% pay payroll tax on all they earn and that SS tax receipts have for years been used to finance the General Fund. So while they may not pay ‘income tax’ they pay tax which goes to support the same things that income tax supports.
Which knocks the legs from under the assertion they ‘have no skin in the game.’ In fact, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here, they have more ’skin in the game’ than many millionaires who pay zilch.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Peter

December 2nd, 2011
9:01 am

Jobless rate going down…we are about to start the year end rally in the stock market.be excited !

Obama for 4 more years, the Republican’s can’t get it together……America is looking fine these days !

Mary Elizabeth

December 2nd, 2011
9:01 am

“. . .since that’s not how Pope Grover I sees it, I guess it doesn’t matter. This is his country, and we just happen to live here.”
——————————————

Though Grover Norquist has much power to influence the shape of America regarding tax cuts and defunding entitlements, he is only the leading spokesman for an ideology that has taken root for thirty years. That ideology is tearing America apart, and that ideology is creating an America as alien to the Founders intent as is the bill for the military to arrest citizens.

On “Morning Joe,” on MSNBC this morning, Dr. Brezenski stated that the dichotomy between the rich and poor in America is greater than any other nation in the world (or is at least equal to that in China, Brazil, and India.) This was proven on a recent statistical analysis by an international firm whose name I did not catch.

Again, I will state that this huge dichotomy has not been by happenstance. We must start to acknowledge this and to turn these values around. Brezenski also said the world has changed from being a two-block power to an interwoven world of many powers, and that how we handle our social problems in the U.S. is noticed and assessed, by others, worldwide.

Shame on America for having created this huge dichotomy between rich and poor through a consciousness which does not value those without power and wealth.

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
9:02 am

Bosch – puppeh!!!!! love it – it’s been an aggravating week (I could have used that pic on Wednesday when my fellow train passengers must have thought I was a Tourettes sufferer while I was reading my e-mail)

GM

December 2nd, 2011
9:03 am

satans rep party never seems to amaze me, they rather put 250,000 people who work for the gov in the unemployment line then to help each family save 1500 on payroll taxs.
Even if you hate Obama, and a rep middle class worker you can not be this stupid and support this selfish party of idiots, Newt the georgia joke is going around the country and bashing poor people for not having jobs and telling them to clean toiliets, what amazing he has not been to the trailer parks of Georgia and see the poor people that live in those communites.

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
9:03 am

Aquagirl I’m not a republican

And if I were I wouldn’t be ashamed of norquist

I just don’t care about him

Stevie Ray

December 2nd, 2011
9:03 am

BROCEPHUS,

THROW THEM ALL OUT is IMO the most important political book released in decades. Couldn’t recommend it more highly. It’s the heart of congress that is rotten….once the wealth gaining opportunities illegal for all else are eliminated, we have a chance of getting electorate that at least has an interest in the voters..

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
9:03 am

Bosch – 9:01 – (golf clap) – well played, sir!!!

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
9:05 am

Generation$crewed

December 2nd, 2011
8:55 am

But why is it that those least able to afford have to pay the piper and not those who can afford it most? Like I said, I have no problem paying my share if EVERY American does too.
You are being slapped in the face by the Rich and their minions, the GOP, and evidently don’t realize it.

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
9:05 am

“Democrats have a majority voting block in the Senate. The DEMOCRATS voted it down.”

Wrong, Butch. Read the post before attempting to lecture.

The Democratic plan PASSED 51-49, but it failed to get the 60 votes that the GOP required through the filibuster rule. The only way they could have gotten to that magic 60 was with a significant number of Republican votes.

Those votes did not occur.

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
9:05 am

“Democrats were willing to make trivial immaterial cuts to spending, that’s it.”

Geez, jm, aren’t you embarrassed yet this morning by these inane postings?

Generation$crewed

December 2nd, 2011
9:06 am

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
9:01 am

Hence why i said skin or more skin….

But you got to rant on about sdomething and give props to ur buddy Paul, so hey if it made you feel better….. you are welcome.

Do you not agree we all need to pay more in order for this country to be fiscally sound?

I mean we could tax the top 5% at 95% and it would not be enough.

So unless you have crafted a way in which we all do not have to pay more, then what was the point of your post, as i was not saying anything about what you were trying to make it seem I was.

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
9:06 am

you think the right would find joy in this:

Private companies added 140,000 jobs, while the public sector—federal, state and local governments—lost 20,000 jobs.

Normal

December 2nd, 2011
9:07 am

No jm, the Democrats want to make large cuts in farm subsidies, Oil subsidies, Defense spending, and close tax loop holes first. Why don’t you?

Brosephus

December 2nd, 2011
9:07 am

Stevie

I’ll have to see if I can get my hands on a copy. I’m all for reading a good book, especially if it involves car chases and explosions. :)

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
9:08 am

Trotsky 8:58
Not a lie

They (we) get almost all the benefits from social benefits (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, unemployment)

And we pretty much get a fair proportion of the value out of the military

So yes, working and formerly working people get most of the value out of the government

Well, at least as much value as is provided, which is debatable

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
9:09 am

Normal – “No jm, the Democrats want to make large cuts in farm subsidies, Oil subsidies, Defense spending, and close tax loop holes first. Why don’t you?”

don’t you know??? they’re the PROVIDERS – it’s the poor, the old, the infirm that are the LEECHES, so THEIR programs should be cut first

:roll:

Martin the Calvinist

December 2nd, 2011
9:09 am

What is really the crying shame is that we take in 2.3 trillion in revenue and we spend 3.7 trillion. You could wipe out the entire defense budget and we would still be overspending.

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
9:10 am

GS,

I’m with Normal, on this. I too would like to see as you wrote earlier the Clinton tax rates, but the rich don’t want to pay up like we poor to middling folks do. Let’s start though with the people who pay the least percentage of their income first, then go downward toward the people who make the least.

To do otherwise, crushes the economy as it gives less buying power to the most people — that’s not good for our consumer driven economy.

Richard

December 2nd, 2011
9:10 am

Let’s consider what going on here, shall we? The payroll tax cut is meant to be set aside for Medicare and Social Security. By cutting them initially, Obama undermined two already severely underfunded programs. It should never have been approved in the first place.

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
9:10 am

jm, have you found that link where Norquist says letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not be a tax hike, as you claimed?

Joe Bob

December 2nd, 2011
9:10 am

The Democrats have a majority in the Senate but it is always the GOP’s fault.

Peadawg

December 2nd, 2011
9:10 am

“By cutting them initially, Obama undermined two already severely underfunded programs. It should never have been approved in the first place.”

This^^^

Bosch

December 2nd, 2011
9:11 am

“working and formerly working people get most of the value out of the government”

Dang, more stoopid this morning. Those services are shared equally amongst the populace — no one gets more “value” for their bucks.

Road Scholar

December 2nd, 2011
9:11 am

Jay

December 2nd, 2011
9:12 am

Joe Bob, a majority is not 60 votes, and 60 votes are required these days.

Stevie Ray

December 2nd, 2011
9:12 am

PETER and AQUAGIRL,

Please excuse me for not getting back to you on your GW barking late yesterday…work got in the way of this fun. I want to recall one of you labeled me the ridicule of something or other. We can fight another day about our disagreement on the odds of that particular crisis being credible.

PETER

So unemployment is below 9% so BO will get re-elected and all is well? It’s a bit too early for glee don’t you think? BO is not to blame but gets credit for alleged reduction in unemployment that in no way shape or form can be objectively linked back to any DC policy…except within a range of .003 to 4.0% or whatever the CBO suggested….Be careful counting your eggs as this economy will last for a while regardless of who is in office…

Jm

December 2nd, 2011
9:13 am

Jay 8:56

Google “norquist bush tax cuts”

There are at least two July 21 2011 articles, one from huffington and the other from politico about how norquist stated he was ok with letting the bush tax cuts expire

Keep up :)

USinUK

December 2nd, 2011
9:13 am

“The Democrats have a majority in the Senate but it is always the GOP’s fault.”

when they require a SUPERMAJORITY for non-supermajority legislation, YES, it is their fault.