In payroll-tax debate, both parties rush to abandon principles

The debate in Washington about extending the payroll tax holiday has been remarkable. It has managed to put Republicans and Democrats alike in opposition to things they support, and in support of things they oppose. All at little actual benefit to them — or the rest of us.

OK, let’s make that “remarkably bad.”

Here are the basic facts: Last December, as part of a broader deal, the president and the Congress agreed to a one-year reduction of 2 percentage points in employees’ portion of payroll taxes, which are supposed to fund Social Security and Medicare. Leaders of both parties propose extending the holiday through next year. Both have tacked onto their proposal an unrelated extension of unemployment benefits. They have competing plans to offset the extension, which is projected to reduce revenues by $120 billion.

After that, there’s little agreement about anything.

Republicans don’t share President Obama’s obsession with raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” (no matter what the problem is, he says taxing “the rich” is part of the answer). Thus, he charged last week, the GOP will “barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help.”

And what qualifies as “barely lift[ing] a finger”? Why, proposing to do exactly what was done last year and exactly what Senate Democrats now propose, but with different offsets.

When Obama finally acknowledged Senate Republicans had proposed extending the tax holiday, he said he wouldn’t agree to a plan whose offsets — spending cuts — “hurt the economy.” Which requires him to ignore the fact that the tax cuts come today but, as usual, the spending cuts don’t kick in until a few years have passed, if ever.

This is the standard pattern by which Washington kicks the can down the road, in another of the president’s favorite tsk-tsk phrases.

But what’s really odd is how the debate has put Republicans and Democrats in one another’s shoes. Suddenly, Democrats profess belief that tax cuts create jobs.

Meanwhile, it’s left to Republicans to argue that lowering the payroll tax will destabilize Social Security. You know, the program the GOP supposedly wants to gut, right before pushing your wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff.

To their credit, there are some Democrats who recognize that cutting the link between payroll taxes and Social Security only further weakens the notion that working Americans pay for the benefits they eventually receive. In fact, working Americans pay for current retirees, with nothing but a promise from Congress that future generations will do likewise decades hence.

Similarly, there are principled Republicans willing to make the case, an unpopular one in this instance, that not all tax cuts are created equal. A temporary tax cut with unpredictable effects on demand for business owners will have far less economic impact than a tax cut that is long-term and produces clear incentives.

Yet, for the most part, this debate features Democrats acting to weaken a cornerstone of the New Deal, while Republicans thumb their noses at a key underpinning of supply-side economics.

A lack of bipartisanship sets hands a-wringing, but at least partisan gridlock usually has the benefit of contrasting coherent, divergent philosophies. Voters then face a clear distinction and can opt for whichever viewpoint seems to fit the nation’s contemporary problems best.

I find it much more worrying for the parties to forsake those coherent, divergent philosophies in favor of political pandering.

That’s hardly an unprecedented occurrence, and the parties still will present stark contrasts next year in their visions for the size, scope and role of the federal government, as Obama observed in an interview broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes.”

Yet, few contemporary problems are more pressing, more in need of clear choices for voters to evaluate, than the big three federal expenses of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and how we pay for them. Fail to offer that choice, and it’ll cost the average person a lot more than $20 a week in his paycheck.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

209 comments Add your comment

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
5:43 am

there are principled Republicans willing to make the case, an unpopular one in this instance, that not all tax cuts are created equal
————————–

It’s been proven in recent years that this is the case. Our President Bush’s tax cuts worked–unemployment decreased and revenue increased after His were enacted. Obozo’s payroll tax cut is a proven failure–unemployment didn’t improve as a result of the cuts, and payroll tax revenue fell by over $100 billion.

Road Scholar

December 15th, 2011
6:51 am

“Suddenly, Democrats profess belief that tax cuts create jobs.”

You hear it enough it becomes a fact… thank you Fox News.
I wish they ‘d sit down and decide what we want to fund and then adjust taxes appropriately. No adding, just removal of bad and stupid programs.

Ayn Rant

December 15th, 2011
6:54 am

Lil’ Barry is delusional on Republican political dogma this morning!

The Bush/Republican tax cuts for Big Business and the ultra-rich plunged the federal budget into deficit. The deficit was then covered by borrowing back the tax cuts, at current interest rates, and passing the obligation on as national debt. (… an old Republican trick dating from the early Reagan administration.) Debt provides a temporary sense of prosperity, but is not as beneficial as “revenue” in the real world in the long term.

Not once during the Bush/Republican administration did job creation match the population increase, and it always fell short of job creation in the Clinton administration. We all know what happened to the economy in 2008-2009, when the over-leveraged speculative bubble burst, and the culprits had to be bailed out with more federal deficit spending.

The payroll tax cuts, like the timid stimulus measures before, keep the economy from sinking into depression, but are not nearly enough to jolt the economy out of the Bush/Republican recession. It would be better to pour tax revenue and borrowed money into massive infrastructure improvements that create hundreds of thousands of jobs. (… but not unneeded oil pipelines.) Unfortunately, politician-run federal, state, and local governments do not plan ahead, so there are no worthy “shovel-ready” projects for public investment.

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
7:15 am

Hey Kyle did you catch the news this morning? Nearly 1 in 2 Americans live at or right above the poverty line (low income). Essentially says that all wealth that has been created in the last 30 years has gone right to the top. Supply side economics has been great for you, if you’re one of the fortunate few at the top. Everyone else gets screwed.

Please, PLEASE GOP, continue to cry about raising taxes on the rich. Continue to call for cuts to the very safety net which keeps even more people from falling into poverty. The sentiment is so out of touch with reality, it nearly guarantees huge Democrat wins in next year’s election.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
7:24 am

Nearly 1 in 2 Americans live at or right above the poverty line
———–

On whose watch?

Brian

December 15th, 2011
7:42 am

Lil Barry – Go take a look at median household income and GDP growth and contrast that with marginal tax rates for individuals among the top 10% of wage earners and marginal corporate income tax rates…You’ll see n’ary a correlation between low taxes and a strong economy. In fact, the inverse could be more factually argued – we’ve enjoyed most of our greatest economic growth during relatively high tax periods.

I’m not suggesting I support massive tax increases…..I’d like to see a flattening of the tax code and an elimination of all deductions and exemptions, even though it will likely mean I pay more in taxes.

I’m just divorcing unrelated topics from one another.

David

December 15th, 2011
7:44 am

Lil’ Bawwy Bawwy,
I promise it will be okay. We all survived the debacle that was “Our” President Bush and we will survive eight years of “Our” President Obama. Now call your doctor and tell him/ her, wait probably him, that your medications need adjusting. I promise it will be okay.

Jeff

December 15th, 2011
7:45 am

You can’t fix spending in Atlanta without slashing Education, and you can’t fix spending in DC without slashing War. (There is no true ‘Defense’.) Until the GOP wises up to this, we’re screwed in both locations.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
7:45 am

Brian, I merely stated the facts for the alternate-reality left: tax revenue went up and unemployment down after our President Bush’s tax cuts.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
7:49 am

– we’ve enjoyed most of our greatest economic growth during relatively high tax periods
——–

Nonsense. Regardless of marginal tax rates, tax revenue as a percent of GDP has been relatively stable for decades, which of course includes both strong and weak economic periods.

Mad Max

December 15th, 2011
7:56 am

And who decides what infrastructure projects are needed or unneeded Ayn. Only those that the federal government pays for? God forbid we let the private sector create the jobs in unneeded pipelines! It must be unneeded because private capital would be used and we all know that private capital is always invested foolishly unlike our wise government.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
8:03 am

Ayn is so brainwashed by Obozo and other Marxists that she thinks the government builds pipelines.

jconservative

December 15th, 2011
8:05 am

“…tax revenue went up and unemployment down after our President Bush’s tax cuts…”

Yet while Bush was president the national debt doubled and net jobs created was zero.

Not making a point, just stating the facts.

“Facts are troublesome things.”

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
8:12 am

Net new jobs? There are two million FEWER jobs today than when Obozo took office!

PinkoNeoConLibertarian

December 15th, 2011
8:12 am

It really just goes to show that they really don’t have principles at all. Their only concerns are how to keep the other guy from getting elected while getting themselves reelected. And yes, that’s an indictment of both “parties”. What a misnomer. I see nothing to celebrate in the way that they conduct themselves.

Cosby

December 15th, 2011
8:19 am

The payroll tax holiday as it is called actually onluy add a few pennies to ones pay check. Most people did not even know they received a tax reduction. The fact it comes from a social program taht is suppose to be flly funded by contributions but is brankrupt just does not make any sense. Nothing but political gesturing out of DC and Harry and Obama decise which bill comes up…time for a “Change”

A Different Jeff

December 15th, 2011
8:19 am

Parties would first have to have principles in order to abandon them.

HDB

December 15th, 2011
8:20 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
7:49 am

Wrong again, Barry…

1) Greatest growth in the middle class was during the Eisenhower Administration; optimum tax rate was 90%

2) Second greatest growth in the middle class and most prolonged period to exonomic growth – Clinton Years – optimum tax rate: 39.5% (and balanced budget)

3) Longest recessions: Bush 43, Reagan, Bush 41

4) Periods of FLAT government spending: Carter (deficits were only $45B each year) and Obama (deficits are $1.2T each year)

5) Periods of greatest government spending and declining revenue: Bush 43, Reagan (1st term).

Actually, unemployment went UP when Bush took office — did you note the layoffs that occurred IMMEDIATELY after 9/11….particularly in the airline and IT industries………

HDB

December 15th, 2011
8:22 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
8:12 am

Lest you forget – we were LOSING 3M jobs/year in the Bush recession…..and Obama’s spending arrested that fall……you can’t change that!! THAT’S why there’s 2M jobs LESS…but that is changing also!!

Roekest

December 15th, 2011
8:23 am

“It really just goes to show that they really don’t have principles at all. Their only concerns are how to keep the other guy from getting elected while getting themselves reelected. And yes, that’s an indictment of both “parties”. What a misnomer. I see nothing to celebrate in the way that they conduct themselves.”

—————-

Amen! Now, if only the rest of the AJC’s divided peanut-gallery of “commentators” could see this fact, we might be okay. But unfortunately, too many are entrenched in their left/right-wing dogmatic views. You so-called “voters” will be the death of this country.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
8:27 am

The Obozo receptacles are spinning hard this morning…and no wonder, since their Nobel winning Ivy League genius has created Food Stamp Nation.

Obozo: inferior to our President Bush.

Voice of Reason

December 15th, 2011
8:28 am

Ayn Rant, the problem with the Bush tax cuts is not the tax cuts themselves, but the fact that they weren’t paid for by cutting spending appropriately. Bush grew the federal government at least as much as Obama has, which is certainly not a good thing.

SBinF, the poverty line is a moving target, which is arbitrarily set by the government. We could change the poverty line and say anyone that makes less than $200k is poor, and poverty rates would sky rocket. How many people are truly poor, as in can’t eat and sleep in a box? Very few. I’ve known plenty of people who were living in “poverty” that own iphones, flat screen tvs, and had high speed internet. BTW, I’m not even close to the “fortunate few at the top,” but I’m doing just fine. Stop exaggerating the disparity in wealth.

Anywho, “Suddenly, Democrats profess belief that tax cuts create jobs.”

I noticed that a couple of weeks ago. Shows you how hypocritical both parties can be. Look, Democrats, either tax cuts work, or they don’t, pick your side. The problem with this particular cut is that it undermines already underfunded programs. Again, either SS and Medicare are good programs, and you fund them, or they aren’t, in which you should get rid of them.

carlosgvv

December 15th, 2011
8:28 am

In other words Kyle, both parties won’t hesitate to lie thru their teeth to the American people in order to protect their dogma, their wealthy sponsors and, hopefully, to keep the votes coming in. Nothing new in this.

Gimme Gimme Gimme

December 15th, 2011
8:30 am

Kyle,

I really enjoy your fair articles. You present the good, bad and the ugly no matter which party it is. It is quite a departure from the one-sided slant that has dominated the AJC opinion section for so long.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
8:35 am

Tax revenue averaged 15% of GDP during the Eisenhower admin, and 16% during the Bush II admin. looks like higher taxe revenue makes the economy worse. Funny too, how revenues were higher while tax rates were lower.

Oopsies!

Mark

December 15th, 2011
8:46 am

@ Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
7:24 am

Nearly 1 in 2 Americans live at or right above the poverty line
———–

On whose watch?

Well whose watch created this mess? Let’s be fair the economy was on a down slide when YOUR President Bush left office who added a $4 trillion to the National Debt. So why you are calling President Obama inferior, then what the heck was YOUR President Bush. The one who left office as one of the most unpopular Presidents in History with a 22% approval rating. YOUR President Bush!

Quagmire - Herman Cain's WingMan

December 15th, 2011
9:02 am

@Lil’Barry Bailout – President Obama inferior to Bush

Remember this statement “Mission Accomplished”………enough said

Now get back to working the phones for neal double-chin boortz

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
9:03 am

“SBinF, the poverty line is a moving target, which is arbitrarily set by the government. We could change the poverty line and say anyone that makes less than $200k is poor, and poverty rates would sky rocket. How many people are truly poor, as in can’t eat and sleep in a box? Very few. I’ve known plenty of people who were living in “poverty” that own iphones, flat screen tvs, and had high speed internet. BTW, I’m not even close to the “fortunate few at the top,” but I’m doing just fine. Stop exaggerating the disparity in wealth.”

“Voice of Reason”

Awesome, so your anecdotes trump census data? Who is exaggerating? These numbers are plain for anyone to see, how much wealth has been created in a given time period, and to whom has that wealth been disbursed? You classify the truly poor only as those that are homeless? The irony, in that you claim the government sets and “arbitrary” metric for poverty. Upon closer inspection, your logic unravels like an ugly Christmas sweater.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
9:03 am

Hey Mark, you realize that Obozo has added $4.6 trillion to the debt in 2+ years, while it took our President Bush eight years to add $4.9 trillion, right?

As to who created the mess, look no further than Dodd, Frank, and the moochers who decided not to pay their mortgages.

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
9:05 am

Further, “Voice of Reason”

The poverty line I believe is somewhere around 16 grand/year for a family of four. Can you in good conscience really say that people living in such a situation are doing well for themselves?

And who are these plenty of people you’ve known who are living in poverty? Are you privy to their tax returns? Do you have access to their financial records and bank statements? How many people is it that you know living at poverty level?

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
9:08 am

But honestly, why bother refuting your opinion with facts?

The majority of low-income families — 62 percent — spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth.
Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000.

http://news.yahoo.com/census-shows-1-2-people-poor-low-income-054325860.html

No, no…I’m exaggerating the wealth disparity in the country. That’s rich!

td

December 15th, 2011
9:12 am

The one thing I have not seen written about is why do the progressives really support these payroll tax deductions in the first place? Progressives hate any type of tax cut unless it is part of their overall plan to redistribute wealth and this tax cut plays right into their plan. The bottom 47% of wage earners already pay $0 in income tax and now this same group of non supporters of the government are getting the lions share of this tax cut so that they do not have to fund their own social security. The conservatives need to realize that the progressives are winning this game by saying they are cutting taxes but in reality all they are doing is making the bottom 47% less and less responsible for paying for any government functions while at the same time refusing to even consider the slowing down of government growth.

HDB

December 15th, 2011
9:13 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
9:03 am

……and to arrest the free fall that Bush got us into with two unpaid-for wars, a major recession that bordered on DEPRESSION, an almost-failure of the financial system, money HAD to be spent!!
Look at REALITY rather than your FICTION!!

JDW

December 15th, 2011
9:14 am

@LBB…”Our President Bush’s tax cuts worked–unemployment decreased and revenue increased after His were enacted. ”

Damn that sounds good…of course like most of what you say it isn’t true. Below are federal tax receipts by year in constant 2005 dollars. Please note that it took until 2006 for receipts to equal those in 2000 and starting in 2007 tax receipts have been below 2000 levels and are not forecast to exceed those levels until 2013.

2000 2,310.0
2001 2,215.3
2002 2,028.6
2003 1,901.1
2004 1,949.5
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,324.1
2007 2,414.0
2008 2,286.8
2009 1,898.3
2010 1,919.0
Estimates
2011 1,901.9
2012 2,261.5
2013 2,541.3

HDB

December 15th, 2011
9:16 am

td

December 15th, 2011
9:12 am

In many cases, those in the “lower 47%” are retirees on FIXED INCOME who have supported this nation prior to their retirement; also included in that 47% are 6000 MILLIONAIRES!! Why aren’t you riding THEM(millionaires) as much as you are the retirees??

td

December 15th, 2011
9:17 am

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
9:03 am

Here is a question for you about the poverty level. What did the census data say about the characteristics of the people below the poverty line? What are there educational level? What is their household composition? Remember the census data states that these are HOUSEHOLDS below the poverty line. Define household for us?

John Galt

December 15th, 2011
9:21 am

@TD,

Increase debt, kill jobs, crush industry, nationalize everything, collapse the country, then rebuild in the manner you wish….

It’s not a new game plan. But it is the closest we in America have seen it come to being successful.

td

December 15th, 2011
9:24 am

HDB

December 15th, 2011
9:16 am
td

December 15th, 2011
9:12 am

In many cases, those in the “lower 47%” are retirees on FIXED INCOME who have supported this nation prior to their retirement; also included in that 47% are 6000 MILLIONAIRES!! Why aren’t you riding THEM(millionaires) as much as you are the retirees??

This is not a true statement because thanks to Clinton social security is taxed as income and so is retirement accounts (including 401K accounts). All the elderly on social security is counted in the 53% of taxpayers. Please prove that there are 6000 millionaires that pay $0 taxes? Remember the Capital gains tax and interest and dividends tax is counted as a income tax.

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
9:27 am

“Here is a question for you about the poverty level. What did the census data say about the characteristics of the people below the poverty line? What are there educational level? What is their household composition? Remember the census data states that these are HOUSEHOLDS below the poverty line. Define household for us?”

The census data are freely available for anyone who wants to look at it. Do your own homework, “TD.”

JoeFann

December 15th, 2011
9:30 am

My six cents worth. First, let the P/R tax holiday expire, we can’t afford the SS revenue loss. Second, begin the real work of reforming SS and Medicare to a sustainable model, or come up with a new vehicle to insure seniors (including future ones) aren’t abandoned. Third, we all could use a round (several years) of 3-5% inflation. The Fed’s attack on inflation has killed income growth for working Americans, and contributes to our lingering housing problems. How many homes would move back out of foreclosure if American incomes rose and housing values rebounded slowly? Fourth, if you really want to attack the unemployment problems, tax multi-nationals that moved (and continue to move) the jobs overseas on the basis of job loss. When you make it more expensive for them to move the work (and workers) abroad, they’ll hire here. Again. Fifth, if you’re going to use tax policy to either incent or disincent, a current practice that I oppose, at least make sure it incents or disincents the things that are productive for America. Sixth, as the article (only some of which I agree with) points out, Rs and Ds are merely two sides of the same coin, and are clearly clueless, or worse, apathetic, about solving real problems or proposing real solutions. They’re full-time campaigners, only concerned about re-election. Until we disincent that motive with term limits, we’ll get what we’ve got–absolutely nothing. Fire them all. Start over with citizen representatives who work a while and go back home to produce.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
9:31 am

HDB, thanks for digging up and posting the numbers that prove my statement correct. Our President Bush cut tax rates for all tax payers, and revenues went up, until the Dodd-Frank-Moocher recession hit.

Now go get the unemployment numbers!

JF McNamara

December 15th, 2011
9:36 am

Lil Barry,

“Hey Mark, you realize that Obozo has added $4.6 trillion to the debt in 2+ years, while it took our President Bush eight years to add $4.9 trillion, right?”

This has already been addressed. It’s not all his debt.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2011/jul/28/leonard-lance/us-rep-leonard-lance-says-government-debt-has-grow/

MarkV

December 15th, 2011
9:42 am

There are several omission, fallacies and distortions in Kyle’s article.

Republicans don’t share President Obama’s obsession with raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” By calling it “Obama’s obsession,” Kyle blithely ignores the fact that the majority of Americans support this measure.

“And what qualifies as “barely lift[ing] a finger”? Why, proposing to do exactly what was done last year and exactly what Senate Democrats now propose, but with different offsets.” Isn’t it ridiculous to call something “EXACTLY” (my emphasis) the same, when there is difference is the important issue of offsets?

“ Suddenly, Democrats profess belief that tax cuts create jobs.” This is perhaps the most serious distortion. Kyle knows very well that Democrats opposed tax cuts for the rich, but not for the middle class. Have you forgotten, Kyle, Obama’s tax cuts already instituted?

“A temporary tax cut with unpredictable effects on demand for business owners will have far less economic impact than a tax cut that is long-term and produces clear incentives.” There is no “unpredictable effect of a temporary tax cut on demand,” it is very predictable. The important issue right now is to improve the economy now. Are you suddenly forgetting the unemployment figures, which Republicans use as a propaganda tool?

“Yet, few contemporary problems are more pressing, more in need of clear choices for voters to evaluate, than the big three federal expenses of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and how we pay for them.” There is no “contemporary pressing problem” with Social Security.

td

December 15th, 2011
9:43 am

SBinF

December 15th, 2011
9:27 am

I know what the data says and wanted to bring it to your attention to see if you were truly misguided and do not understand the causes of poverty or to see if you are a progressive and just want to use the data to support your philosophy and moving our nation towards communism.

If you were not a true communist then you would know that study after study tells you that the causes of poverty are 3 fold and I will submit are consequences of the choices individuals make.

1: Education: If a person does not at least get a HS diploma then they are almost always condemned to not making money. This is not a money issue because we, as a nation, spend more money per student then any other nation in the world and we still have one of the highest drop out rates.

2: Single parenthood: If you are a single parent then, especially having children when you are a child, then most studies show you are 100 times more likely to be poor. There was a study released yesterday that says we only have 51% marriage rate now (lowest in American history). When you put two incomes together, at minimum wage, in one household then you would not be below the poverty line.

3: Drug and alcohol abuse: These people can not hold onto jobs and as a result fall below the poverty level.

Now let us hear how I am not being honest?

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
9:43 am

JF, I’m just going by the numbers from the Treasury Department.

Our President Bush: $4.9 trillion added to the debt
Obozo: $4.6 trillion added to the debt (in just 2+ years)

Jimmy62

December 15th, 2011
9:48 am

I like how when it was about ending the Bush tax cuts, they refused to let you call it a tax hike, but now that it’s the payroll tax expiring, the left is calling the expiration a tax hike.

Liars and hypocrites all of them.

That said, a payroll tax cut is generally a good idea as far as I’m concerned. Push SS further over the cliff so we have no choice but to reform it sensibly (i.e. raise the age for benefits based on life expectancy). But we’ve already spent so many trillions that haven’t really helped in the long-run, so I fail to see how more Keynsian stimulus is the answer. There’s not enough money in the world for that stimulus to work.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

December 15th, 2011
9:49 am

td, you forgot

4. Intelligence
5. Motivation

td

December 15th, 2011
9:51 am

MarkV

December 15th, 2011
9:42 am

“Senate Democrats now propose, but with different offsets.”

It is not what the Dems propose but rather what they have passed in the form of a bill. Can you tell me the Senate bill that has passed with their proposals to extend the tax cuts? Can you tell me were to find the 2011 or 2010 Senate budget bill?

“Kyle knows very well that Democrats opposed tax cuts for the rich, but not for the middle class”

Define “middle class”? Is this the class of people that actually pay income taxes or do you count people that pay no income taxes?

The Lack and Absence of Moral Principles by the Republicans

December 15th, 2011
9:53 am

Republicans don’t share President Obama’s obsession with raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” (no matter what the problem is, he says taxing “the rich” is part of the answer). Thus, he charged last week, the GOP will “barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help.”
************************************************************

The GOP will “barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help.”

What is WRONG WITH THAT?

UGA 1999

December 15th, 2011
9:56 am

Both parties are brokering deals for other needs and holding the payroll tax ransom.