House passes “chicken crap” bill limiting Bush tax cuts extension to the middle class

posted at 4:59 pm on December 2, 2010 by Allahpundit

The Weekly Standard’s headline: “House Democrats Vote to Increase Taxes.” 234-188, with only three Republicans voting yes — Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan, and our old friend Ron Paul. This bill is as dead in the Senate as the Democrats’ chances are of taking back Congress in 2012, but Madam Speaker wants to remind her base that she’ll be fightin’ for the cause next year after having led the party to utter ruin last month, so here she is forcing a meaningless vote to give Democrats a few days of “party of the rich” talking points. I wonder if, when the inevitable deal is struck extending all the cuts temporarily, she’ll be willing to bring that new bill to the floor or if she’ll refuse out of spite and force Boehner to do it himself when he takes the gavel next year. That’ll be a bureaucratic hassle for taxpayers and the IRS, but Nancy’s got to prove her worth somehow.

Two clips for you, one of Boehner unloading on the Democrats’ tactics in colorful terms and the other of Dem Rep. Joe Crowley accusing the GOP of wanting to protect rich dogs or something. Click the second image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Those so called concerned rich guys have an army of tax accountants working to keep their taxes as low as possible. They have most of their wealth in TAX FREE instruments. You do understand the concept of TAX FREE investments, right?

Yes, Warren Buffet is a fat cat millionaire living in suburban Omaha, trying to prevent others from succeeding. Good call.
And raising taxes on people who earn over $500k annually will prevent the little guy from acquiring wealth.

Where’s your evidence? You are overstating the number of tax-free investments held by lawyers, accountants, and other urban professionals who earn over $500k per year. I know a number of investment bankers who earn a minimum of $750k in annual bonuses alone, and their assets aren’t tied up in tax-free bonds or similar investments.

Anyway, why can’t you trust the nation’s top capitalists and entrepreneurs? What have you read about Buffet or Munger that leads you to believe that their modus operandi is to keep anyone down? I’d have to attend a communist party luncheon to hear more whining about how the great entrepreneurs are trying to hurt the little guy. And there’s only one significant group that wants to keep taxes low on the wealthiest- the trust fund families, like the Waltons, who donate millions annually to politicians. No one else benefits.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM

This bill is as dead in the Senate

You sure about that?

This looks to be a budgetary bill, meaning reconciliation would be available, so they could shortcut a filibuster. Or at least have a decent chance of it I’d think.

Are you sure there aren’t 50 Dems willing to vote yes to show that their party can still stick it to the rich (even in this economy)?

You’re giving them a lot more credit than I will. I hope it dies, but I don’t see it as a sure thing yet.

gekkobear on December 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Yes, Warren Buffet is a fat cat millionaire living in suburban Omaha

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Not. He lives uptown, always has, in the heart of Omaha.

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Not. He lives uptown, always has, in the heart of Omaha.

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 7:01 PM

That’s my point, he’s a Billionaire living in the sprawling ghettos of central Omaha.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM

College professors are the lowest paid, highest educated people on planet earth, Joe. As such, we are hardly upper middle class. As for our market value, relatively few secure managerial jobs without us.

anXdem on December 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM

I don’t know you personally, and you must understand that I am speaking of your profession generically, but …

YOU!!!! YOU’RE THE CAUSE OF ALL THIS!! “Educating our youth”, my happy pimpled butt!! Try getting ANY of your sainted darlings to come out here in work clothes and make something of themselves.

THEY DON’T NEED A COLLEGE EDUCATION!! THEY NEED A FRICKIN’ WORK ETHIC!! TEACH THAT, YOU OVERPAID PARASITE.

Thank you.

Farmer on December 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Farmer, you mean you don’t weep for the highest educated, lowest paid among us?

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 7:05 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Ok, so you push a tax rate that encourages me to lock down my investments and not touch them (which I’ve just finished positioning them for… because I think you’ve got a shot at this passing).

What do you gain? I don’t sell any of my stock investments (short of a crisis) for 15-20 years, or until the rates come back down so I don’t pay as much. I minimize my income to minimize my taxes.

The odds of my paying 30-35%+ on Long-term capital gains if you pass a rate like that? Not gonna happen… all you’ll do is lock in investments, stop money from moving in the market, and convince people to look for lower gain investments that have lower tax liabilities.

You’re working to encourage people to take worse deals because they’ll end up better off after taxes; and not to take any risks as the risk/reward payoff loses a significant chunk of “reward” due to increased taxes.

Now I must have missed it; how does this create jobs and help the economic recovery?

I’m not sure why you think this is a good plan, and Buffet thinking this is a good plan too doesn’t make it sound better to me… maybe if he said it to me in a really convincing tone of voice… has he taken courses in hypnotism?

But yes, push the market to encourage people to look for “safe” because even if they pick a good stock you’ll take most of the profit… and make them eat any loss if they pick poorly. What sort of risks would a rational investor take in that situation?

Is discouraging all risk a good way to promote economic gains?

gekkobear on December 2, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Farmer, you mean you don’t weep for the highest educated, lowest paid among us?

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Excrement, no.

Farmer on December 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Warren & Astrid live in a veddy tony neighborhood, in a delightful and charming house.

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Blimey, even the fake civility of the slurpee summit didn’t last long, did it? I hope the Pubs check the Speaker’s office for stinkbombs, whoopee cushions and spiders before they move in.

Fortunata on December 2, 2010 at 7:16 PM

look, bayam has a census report, people!

So just stop it and agree with him already.

Seriously, I think a better illustration about taxes was written 2 months ago, a dude explaining that the ten year benefit to him working harder to make extra money was $0.

That is, he lost in making the money, and he lost in investing the money. So, he was being punished from working harder, there was no benefit to him or his kids in doing work which would ostensibly help other people (you know, like I work an extra hour, get a few bucks so I can buy a slurpee from Bayam).

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 7:23 PM

First it’s the suburbs, then the sprawling ghetto? I don’t like Buffet’s liberal views, but beyam is an idiot!

therealfranklin on December 2, 2010 at 7:23 PM

According the Weekly Standard, tax cuts are now tax increases. That’s tremendous.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 5:21 PM

There is an increase over the current tax rate. That is a tax increase.

Did you fail 1 + 1?

ladyingray on December 2, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Blimey, even the fake civility of the slurpee summit didn’t last long, did it? I hope the Pubs check the Speaker’s office for stinkbombs, whoopee cushions and spiders before they move in.

Fortunata on December 2, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Best sweep for Shrillary’s bugs…

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM

So an increase is not an increase?

ladyingray on December 2, 2010 at 7:26 PM

That’s my point, he’s a Billionaire living in the sprawling ghettos of central Omaha.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 7:03 PM

He is also the genius that told everybody how smart Obama was and that he would provide great leadership….
……would put us on the right track economically….
………..would handle foreign affairs with great skill….

He could not have been further off the mark.
He may have a lot of money but so does Rosie O’donell and Sean Penn.
Buffett and many fact cats invested heavily in Obama only to have it blow up in their faces.

Their political positions have turned out to be the only shovel ready projects of the Obama administration.

Your populous rants are hilarious when you see Obama’s pockets so full of BP and Goldman Sach’s money.

You and your democratic friends are always yelling about
What the “economist say”…
…well a majority of them agree with the GOP.


Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for everyone

By Chris Isidore, senior writerSeptember 20, 2010: 9:09 AM ET
(CNN link)

The first in a series of economic surveys revealed that extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers is the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy.

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Uh yeah, it really is.

Chuck Schick on December 2, 2010 at 7:28 PM

PR so the taxes do not rise when the cuts end?

Really?

raising=rise

Wow you here again ? Really?

CWforFreedom on December 2, 2010 at 7:29 PM

But yes, push the market to encourage people to look for “safe” because even if they pick a good stock you’ll take most of the profit… and make them eat any loss if they pick poorly. What sort of risks would a rational investor take in that situation?

Is discouraging all risk a good way to promote economic gains?

Your supply side arguments were finally put to the test when Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy- even though prominent Republicans, including Paul O’Neill in Treasury, disagreed with the policy.

My point is simply that net job creation after these taxes were lowered was nominal. The most clear, measurable result was massive gains for the top 1% in society while middle class incomes stagnated. The job growth simply never materialized.

As for your argument that higher taxes will stimey entrepreneurial activity, you can read what this country’s top innovators and entrepreneurs have to say about that. Their much larger concern is the long-term fiscal health of the country and incomes of the middle class. For people creating wealth and prosperity, a higher personal tax rate is about as significant as a rounding error on their tax return. The people pouring cash into political coffers to lower taxes on the wealthy are trust fund families that don’t know how to create jobs or grow the economy but will go to hell and back to protect their inherited fortunes.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Bush pushed through tax cuts for the richest despite protest from within his own party, while promising job growth. Guess what- it never happened. The only thing it achieved was a larger divide between the rich and middle class.

The Bush tax cuts did provide growth and jobs:

President Bush Helped Americans Through Tax Relief
President Bush Trusted Americans With Their Hard-Earned Money, Providing $1.7 Trillion In Relief Through 2008
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/factsheets/taxrelief.html

The President’s tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue.  From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy.  The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average.  Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent.  Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President’s second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.

Even the NY Times admits that Tax Cuts lowered the deficit:

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 9, 200

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Bush Tax Cuts benefited all Americans:

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Published on January 29, 2007 by Brian Riedl
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts

Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:


The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;


The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the “tax cuts for the rich”;


Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts;

and

The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

…We heard for years how terrible the Bush Tax Cuts where for the country from liberals night and day.
Now that their butts are on the line and their policies have produced nothing but failure….they want to extend them but play populous games by punishing the people who actually create jobs and many small businesses.

Democrats have had control of the purse strings since 2006 and have nothing but massive debt and unemployment to show for it.

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Bayam, the unemployment rate was below 5% what are you talking about!

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 7:52 PM

This has probably already been mentioned, but aren’t many of us “little guys” gonna be making over $250k once hyperinflation kicks in?

NTWR on December 2, 2010 at 7:53 PM

And there’s only one significant group that wants to keep taxes low on the wealthiest- the trust fund families, like the Waltons, who donate millions annually to politicians. No one else benefits.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Conservatives want to keep taxes low for the backbone of this country and the people who create jobs.

It is a lot more than “fat cats” getting hurt by not extending all the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97% Fallacy
The president’s plan to raise top marginal rates is holding back the very people who should be leading the economic recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007. That’s the number to look at, not the 3%. Would Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden deny that the more successful firms owned by individuals in the top income-tax bracket are disproportionately responsible for investment and job creation?

This may be inconvenient to your talking points but the facts are that democrats want to raise taxes on small business owners….not just “fat cats”.

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 7:58 PM

As for our market value, relatively few secure managerial jobs without us.

Unfortunately, “relatively few” seem to knew how to do the work they are supposed to be managing. An education is great. Without practical experience, its useless.

tgharris on December 2, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Had dinner this evening with a local business owner…runs a coule stores in the area and has about 30 or so employees. He was talking about the difficulty in having to identify which employees he may have to lay off after the holidays. You see, he is one of those fat cat rich guys, though his take home is pretty much within the average of most American families these days, but according to the IRS and the Pelosi’s of the world, he is too rich.

The tax hike he will be seeing will take away capital he has been using to keep as good number of folks employed. He makes money. They make money. It works out well that way.

But, since he is in the above $250k threshold when it comes to filing his income taxes, looks like there will be a few less in this town who will be earning any money at all.

coldwarrior on December 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Nothing but proof by assertion followed by appeal to authority.

You have no logic on your side.

fossten on December 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Something to ask all the top capitalists and entrepreneurs in silicon valley and NYC who want the government to raise their taxes. Then again, maybe they’re just a bunch of idiots who can’t be trusted.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Several well known wealthy individuals have lobbied recently in support of higher taxes. Their utterances are widely reported, and oft repeated.

Somehow, you’ve conflated this into all the top capitalists and entrepreneurs in silicon valley and NYC …

A few is not all; and volume doesn’t signify universal support.

massrighty on December 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM

As for your argument that higher taxes will stimey entrepreneurial activity, you can read what this country’s top innovators and entrepreneurs have to say about that. Their much larger concern is the long-term fiscal health of the country and incomes of the middle class.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Most entrepreneurs (I am one) are worrying about how to make payroll in two weeks or whether revenue will remain flat in 2011. Is the LT fiscal solvency of the US a concern? Of course it is, but I’m not worried about what may happen years from now. What I am focused on is how to survive the reaming from Obama and his cronies for the next 24 mos.

For people creating wealth and prosperity, a higher personal tax rate is about as significant as a rounding error on their tax return. The people pouring cash into political coffers to lower taxes on the wealthy are trust fund families that don’t know how to create jobs or grow the economy but will go to hell and back to protect their inherited fortunes.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM

I create “wealth and prosperity” and I can tell you (as can many of my peers) that a higher marginal rate on my year end AGI is damn sure significant. It may determine whether I invest in new markets, capital equipment or further reduce our current debt, none of which can occur if the monies that I would otherwise expend in those directions, goes to the Feds instead. Finally, the Dems are still in the majority, Obama is still in the WH, so if they think that raising taxes is such a grand idea, then they alone are to blame for not enacting it.

volnation on December 2, 2010 at 8:20 PM

The Joe Crowley clip reminded me of Alan Grayson.

csdeven on December 2, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Ya know, everybody seems to be forgetting in their arguments that the money belongs to the person that earned it. As far as I’m concerned, it really doesn’t matter whether gubbmint revenue goes up or goes down. I made it – it’s MY damned money. YOU need to justify your claim to ANY of it!

Yes, I realize that there are common services that need to be paid for. I’m not some idiot no taxes/no gubbmint anarchist. But somebody needs to make the case for every damned dime that gets taken from me…

RightThinker on December 2, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Here is how the democrats stick it to the “fat cats”.

Obama has harsh words over corporate campaign money

Mon, May 10 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama blasted “unscrupulous corporations” and “special interests” that seek to influence U.S. elections on Monday

Democrats love “talking” about how they are going to stick it to the “fat cats” when they are in front of a camera….
…..in front of their “fat cat” friends….not so much:

The two faces of O
By CHARLES GASPARINO
Last Updated: 5:47 AM, December 15, 2009
Posted: 1:29 AM, December 15, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_two_faces_of_oTswtJpCjQusQCFCMdiluJ

As a matter of policy, the administration considers “systemically important” firms like Citi, Goldman and Morgan “too big to fail” signaling the markets that it’ll bail them out if their losses again threaten to shut them down. Plus, Goldman and Morgan Stanley have been declared commercial bank-holding companies (even though you can’t get a car loan or open a checking account at either), so they can borrow from the Federal Reserve in emergencies.
It all translates into cheaper borrowing costs. And the government is also backing up the firms’ long-term debt — so, on top of borrowing from the Fed, Goldman can borrow in the open market at favorable rates.

Yea that’s really showing them…..
Nothing exemplifies taking up for the little guy like telling Wall ST. that they can gamble with the peoples money all they want….Obama will bail them out.

Here is a “fat cat” that democrats love:

Geithner aides made millions on Wall Street
By Tom Braithwaite in Washington

Obama administration officials now working on fixing and regulating the financial system were beneficiaries of several million dollars in pay from Wall Street and private equity companies, it has been revealed.

Yea democrats….keep sticking it to the man!!!!!


Friday-night doc dump: Summers took millions from hedge funds, TARP recipients

posted at 1:52 pm on April 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration has mastered the art of the Friday Night Disclosure.  They tried to avoid media scrutiny over the revelation that National Economic Council chair Lawrence Summers made millions from the same people demonized by Barack Obama and the Democrats for the economic collapse:

Yea buddy….no way democrats are going to let those “fat cats” keep making money off the little guy….


Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Down with the “fat cats”…


Goldman Employees Donated $1 Million to Obama Campaign
By John McCormick – Apr 20, 2010

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash
By: Erika Lovley
May 5, 2010 05:05 AM EDT

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street
Big Banks’ Employees Gave Senator $479,000 in 1st Quarter
By Kristin Jensen and Christine Harper
Bloomberg News
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The figures reflect giving from the employees of Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, as well as Goldman and UBS. Goldman employees gave about 50 percent more to presidential hopefuls than the next-highest set of givers, at Citigroup.

Hurry…Hurry…Hurry and get out your pitchforks and torches…..Obama is changing the way business is done on Capital Hill.

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Several well known wealthy individuals have lobbied recently in support of higher taxes. Their utterances are widely reported, and oft repeated.

Somehow, you’ve conflated this into all the top capitalists and entrepreneurs in silicon valley and NYC …

A few is not all; and volume doesn’t signify universal support.

massrighty on December 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Ok, near universal support. And I’m not talking about only Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin and Reed Hastings. If you’re selling a product or service to the middle class, you need middle class incomes to rise.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Nice smackdown, Baxter.

kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 8:42 PM

coldwarrior on December 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Absolutely!

I am a self employed businessman. I determine my income not a boss or the government.
Since the govt taxes income they raise the prices on my customers because I will not do with less income. I will raise my prices and profit margin and cut costs, employees, advertising, and donations to charities.

The govt may get more of MY money but will get less from the people I layoff or don’t hire, the customers will pay more for my products and the local advertisers will receive less of my money as will, lastly charities.

So the govt got more money from me but in their desire to punish me they punished everyone EXCEPT me including their bottom line REVENUES!

dhunter on December 2, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Now, if a train leaves Chicago…..

Kini on December 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Ah-ha!!! This is where you are wrong. Trains are not allowed to leave Chicago, until they pay a toll tax.

Yoop on December 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM

kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Sent your DOJ post out to friends and family.
Got a lot of positive feed back on it and hope it shows up in your blog traffic.

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM

The people pouring cash into political coffers to lower taxes on the wealthy are trust fund families that don’t know how to create jobs or grow the economy but will go to hell and back to protect their inherited fortunes.

WHY NOT? WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TAKE FORTUNES AWAY FROM THOSE WHO EARNED IT, YOU FRIKKIN SOCIALIST MARXIST MORON.

You have no clue how “the rich” drive the economy.

Rovin on December 2, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Several well known wealthy individuals have lobbied recently in support of higher taxes. Their utterances are widely reported, and oft repeated.

Somehow, you’ve conflated this into all the top capitalists and entrepreneurs in silicon valley and NYC …

A few is not all; and volume doesn’t signify universal support.

massrighty on December 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Let’s suggest changes to the Family Trust tax shelter that the fabulously wealthy use to shelter income, and watch them howl…

slickwillie2001 on December 2, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Even the NY Times admits that Tax Cuts lowered the deficit:

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 9, 200

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You actually don’t understand that debt-fueled economic growth always results in a temporary boost in federal income? But it’s never sustainable. Yes, the housing boom and stock market generated massive profits that were taxed, even as more and more manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas (not Bush’s fault), middle class incomes stagnated, and little real job growth occurred outside of finance and home construction.

You’d be hard pressed to find a mainstream economist that doesn’t explain the past 5 years in this light.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I create “wealth and prosperity” and I can tell you (as can many of my peers) that a higher marginal rate on my year end AGI is damn sure significant. It may determine whether I invest in new markets, capital equipment or further reduce our current debt,

So do I and I can tell you that my personal income tax rate doesn’t affect how much revenue I direct to cap equipment, payroll, or other business expenditures. Why? Because I only pay income tax when I take money out of the business as personal income.

In any case, your business should receive even larger tax breaks that it did under bush. Giving lower taxes to everyone earning over $500k- every Paris Hilton, investment banker, and other urban professional- doesn’t help the middle class or create jobs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM

In any case, your business should receive even larger tax breaks that it did under bush. Giving lower taxes to everyone earning over $500k- every Paris Hilton, investment banker, and other urban professional- doesn’t help the middle class or create jobs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM

No, you’re wrong bayam. But just for the sake of listening, what does create jobs in you opinion?

Rovin on December 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM

bayam, Keynes has been thoroughly discredited by history. But you can cling to him all you want.

fossten on December 2, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Giving lower taxes to everyone earning over $500k- every Paris Hilton, investment banker, and other urban professional- doesn’t help the middle class or create jobs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Witness the dishonest talking point. Everybody with income over $500k is a Paris Hilton fatcat. You’re a damn liar.

Small business is a HUGE part of this demographic, and sub-S corporations pay taxes at the end of the year as ordinary income. Increasing taxes on small biz prevents growth and causes uncertainty.

fossten on December 2, 2010 at 9:38 PM

In any case, your business should receive even larger tax breaks that it did under bush. Giving lower taxes to everyone earning over $500k- every Paris Hilton, investment banker, and other urban professional- doesn’t help the middle class or create jobs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM

GTFO…if you had a modicum of character as an adult you wouldn’t say any of this…

Good grief.

Inanemergencydial on December 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Straw man. I’m not asking them, I’m asking YOU, who the hell you think you are that you want to set a second set of rules for ‘rich people’ as if in this day and age $250,000 is a fortune. They’ve done nothing to you. You’re just jealous, I guess.

If some @sshole on Wall Street worth a hundred million with a lot invested as capital gains income is okay with his taxes being raised then he can just send the Fed another cheque. No one is stopping him!

Plenty of people don’t want their taxes raised; they are a barrier for entry to wealth and the cap gains and estate taxes will be murder on business.

As for idiots who can’t be trusted, I think you’ve already put yourself near the top of that list.

linlithgow on December 2, 2010 at 9:40 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:16 P

Numbers don’t lie bayam.

Federal receipts were higher which reduced the deficit.
Companies had more money for expansion and job creation.

It was not just the “stock market” or “housing boom” that fueled the economy.

Retail,car sales,goods distribution,medical services/ goods,information systems,and many other industries saw expansion under Bush and his business friendly policies.

If democrats are so convinced that Bush’s policies like the Tax Cuts were such a failure…..then they need to vote against them and push their Keynesian pipe dreams harder.

Since they have given nothing but lip service when it comes to their anti-war and anti-wall street positions…..

….it would be nice to see them stand up and own their tax and spend platforms instead of talking out of both sides of their mouth.

They have had the purse strings since 2006 with nothing to show but massive debt,deficits,and high unemployment.

You’d be hard pressed to find a mainstream economist that doesn’t explain the past 5 years in this light.

Most of the past 5 years have been under democratic control in Congress.

….and the majority of economist recommend the extension of all of the Bush Tax Cuts according to that right-wing news outlet CNN.

Baxter Greene on December 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM

linlithgow on December 2, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Only a person personally invested in the policies this bayam idiot advocates for would mission post about the BS that he does.

It is transparent, and not in the way of the current democrat administration.

Most likely, bayam is a leftist rent seeker.

Inanemergencydial on December 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Here’s what bayam’s missing in his/hers “every Paris Hilton doesn’t help the middle class”. Hilton most likely considers over 20% of her income disposable. Take one hundred Hilton’s and their spending prowess will give five to ten “middle class” workers full time jobs. If bayam followed American economic history, every time taxes are cut from the top end (from Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush) the trickle down spending has created JOBS and this nation has prospered. Every time Democrats get in charge, the taxes go up along with regulations and it stifles spending. There has NEVER been an occasion in U.S history when the government has elevated economic gain for the middle class or the “rich”. Re-distribution of wealth has to come from the private sector through their own enrichment. Any other method, (especially when the government’s involved, ) creates dependency, along with bureaucratic nightmares that kills growth. The U.S. Postal Service is a prime example of why the government is never the answer to economic security.

Rovin on December 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Making a rich man poor has never, and will never, make a poor man rich.

angryed on December 2, 2010 at 10:03 PM

So do I and I can tell you that my personal income tax rate doesn’t affect how much revenue I direct to cap equipment, payroll, or other business expenditures. Why? Because I only pay income tax when I take money out of the business as personal income.

Then your not an LLC or other pass-through type entity (like most small businesses). What are you, a C-corp? Most small businesses aren’t C’s but rather some S-corp hybrid or LLC. If you’re big enough to be a C then I don’t know if you could be considered “small”. If I’m wrong then I’m moving to your state.

In any case, your business should receive even larger tax breaks that it did under bush. Giving lower taxes to everyone earning over $500k- every Paris Hilton, investment banker, and other urban professional- doesn’t help the middle class or create jobs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM

I haven’t realized any additional tax breaks under Obama – so whatever he’s doing (or thinks he’s doing/done) hasn’t had any material effect on my tax liability each year. If anything, our costs have risen.

I don’t know that I’d lump the Hilton’s or I-bankers in with Joe’s Hardware Store. I’d agree that at some point a tax break for the uber-wealthy has no material effect on where they spend or invest their money. But it’s still their money – they earned it. I find it a hard pill to swallow that the Feds should allowed to tax you to oblivion simply because you’ve become successful.

Pelosi’s tax plan hits the over $250k, and that’s a lot of people out there including me. What most don’t understand is that just because one’s AGI is above $250k doesn’t necessarily mean that one is enjoying $250k in real income. There are many cash expenditures that are not deducted from AGI, like principle debt reduction for instance.

For those that are leveraged because they take risks in the market in the hopes of higher returns, the reduction of said leverage is not included. So, one that has a principle debt service of $80k annually but has an AGI of $250k has to service a $250k AGI tax load on an effective income of $170k. With a marginal rate of 35%, one would realize a net income (as in cash to spend) of about $82,500 annually. THAT’s why raising taxes on those “making” above $250k is such a bad idea.

But, like I said, if raising taxes (on anyone) in this environment is such a winner politically and fiscally, then why haven’t the Dems done it already? They’re in power for another month – it’s passed the House, Reid can jam it through via reconciliation and Obama can sign it. The fact that they haven’t tells you that it’s a loser.

volnation on December 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Giving lower taxes to everyone earning over $500k- every Paris Hilton, investment banker, and other urban professional- doesn’t help the middle class or create jobs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM

I think this is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read HuffPo comments on a regular basis.

angryed on December 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM

I’ve been in the working world about 25 years, if you include part time jobs in high school and college. In those 25 years, I have never worked for a poor person. Every single person who signed a paycheck for me was a “rich” guy/gal. Every single one. Which means 100% of my income over a quarter century has come from rich people. The same rich people that Bayam and Proud Rino would like to destroy.

Please explain how that would help me.

angryed on December 2, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Ok, near universal support. And I’m not talking about only Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin and Reed Hastings. If you’re selling a product or service to the middle class, you need middle class incomes to rise.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Near universal support? Really?

According to the 2007 IRS tax stats, there were 1.4 million filers in the top 1%.

You’re going to need a few more signatures on that letter to show the ‘near universal support’ that you claim.

mnealtx on December 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Ok, near universal support. And I’m not talking about only Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin and Reed Hastings. If you’re selling a product or service to the middle class, you need middle class incomes to rise.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 8:41 PM

And taxing the snot out of rich people makes middle class incomes rise how exactly?

angryed on December 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM

middle class incomes stagnated, and little real job growth occurred outside of finance and home construction.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Job growth in construction and finance was the work of the brain-trust running the FED. You also sound like there is no movement between one class and another. How many from the lower class moved into the middle class and how many have moved from the middle class to the upper crust?

BTW, were you always in the middle class or were you given your status from your daddy? I wasn’t, I grew up in a single parent house with 3 brothers and 2 sisters. All of us have at least a bachelor’s degree and 4 have master’s degrees and 2 have PhDs, and none of us are in education, we chose to be in the scientific, engineering, medical and finance fields.

You’d be hard pressed to find a mainstream economist that doesn’t explain the past 5 years in this light.

You would be hard pressed to find one of these mainstream economists that saw the meltdown coming and did anything about convincing anyone it was coming. While you are at it, can you identify which one of these mainstream economists that could show the rest of us which society or country in all of recorded history was able to tax its citizens into prosperity?

belad on December 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I love Boehner and am glad that he feels so passionately about this, but he shouldn’t have used such a vulgar term. It’s on par with Sarah Palin’s crude usage of “cajones”. It’s not respectible, not dignified, and not statesmenlike language.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM

have to disagree with you on this point….for far too long, the gop have acted very professional and try to play nice only to get ridiculed and backstabbed too many times by their democrat colleagues….

cmsinaz on December 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Aslans Girl on December 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM

You don’t like anything any Republican does.
Face it, honey, you’re a Democrat.

Jenfidel on December 3, 2010 at 8:21 AM

a few days of “party of the rich” talking points.

A few days? Man I first heard this about 1939 when I started school. Hasn’t stopped since except Obama’s “Bush did it!” battle cry.

Herb on December 3, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Making a rich man poor has never, and will never, make a poor man rich……angryed on December 2, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Obama made a lot of money making rich men poor.

Herb on December 3, 2010 at 9:39 AM

To all you people who have never taken the plunge to own your own small business and are CLEARLY ignorant about what is “rich”, let me educate you a little.

A lot of small businesses, ours included, with 30 or less employees organize into Sub-S corps to minimize tax exposure. What that means is that my personal income is blended with the corporate income. I must file quarterly estimates of what our profit/loss will be. Now I’m “rich” because the gross money that flows through my bank account counts. It’s not profit, mind you. But since the amount is more than 250K, I’m an evil rich guy. Newsflash…I’M NOT RICH! Comfortable? Absolutely. But my responsibility to my employees never fades. How many of you “rich haters” have other families lives to consider when budgets get tight? It’s easy to throw stones at the rich when you’ve never had to worry about whom to lay off and how that will affect their lives.

search4truth on December 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM

cmsinaz on December 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Yes! When the GOP plays ball by the dems’ rules it works like this:

The GOP all bend over and the dems shove the bat up their a$$!

I’m glad they are finally beginning to realize that no matter what they do the MSM is not going to say anything good, so its about time we see some backbone.

belad on December 3, 2010 at 10:02 AM

HERE is a link to find out just who has been paying the bill!

belad on December 3, 2010 at 10:15 AM

I wonder if, when the inevitable deal is struck extending all the cuts temporarily, she’ll be willing to bring that new bill to the floor or if she’ll refuse out of spite and force Boehner to do it himself when he takes the gavel next year. That’ll be a bureaucratic hassle for taxpayers and the IRS, but Nancy’s got to prove her worth somehow.

Democrats in the Senate might be tempted to pass the “middle-class only” extension in the lame-duck session, otherwise lots of middle-class taxpayers will see their withholding increase dramatically in January, and blame the Democrats.

If the “middle-class only” extension passes the Senate and is signed by Obama, Boehner and Co. might have more trouble getting the extension passed for people making more than $250k, since there are not that many of them, and the argument that “raising taxes on small business prevents them from hiring” is a harder sell than “let’s not raise taxes on anybody”.

Steve Z on December 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM

belad on December 3, 2010 at 10:02 AM

exactly

cmsinaz on December 3, 2010 at 10:59 AM

This looks to be a budgetary bill, meaning reconciliation would be available, so they could shortcut a filibuster. Or at least have a decent chance of it I’d think.

gekkobear on December 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM

That’s not how reconciliation works. In order for reconciliation to be applicable, you have to have a Senate bill that is already passed (using the regular rules, which in this case means 60 votes). If that Senate bill is different from the corresponding House bill then you can amend the already-passed Senate bill by simple majority with no option for filibustering to match the House bill. That process (reconciling the Senate’s version with the House’s version) is what we call reconciliation.

Since there is no accepted Senate bill, there’s no option for reconciliation either.

factoid on December 3, 2010 at 11:36 AM

You would be hard pressed to find one of these mainstream economists that saw the meltdown coming and did anything about convincing anyone it was coming

Roubini predicted it, giving him huge credibility on Wall Street. No one wanted to believe him.
http://www.roubini.com/author/nouriel_roubini

can you identify which one of these mainstream economists that could show the rest of us which society or country in all of recorded history was able to tax its citizens into prosperity?

Yes, Robert Rubin’s economic team which advised Clinton to raise taxes. One of many steps that lead to one of the most robust growth periods in US history.

I’m not saying that higher taxes are good but that your overly simplistic belief that taxes are always a bad thing, even when needed to balance the budget, isn’t right.

bayam on December 3, 2010 at 12:37 PM

This is a game of Chicken. The Democrats are not going to pass what the Republicans want. They are also completely willing to have the middle class pay higher taxes, especially if they can say that the Republicans voted against keeping the Middle class tax cuts.

I fully expect that every taxpayers tax rate will increase next year. Obama will make a huge issue of it in the State of the Union address.

jpmn on December 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I never said I wanted them to “play nice”; God save us of from the RINOs like McCain who think that “reaching across the aisle” means anything other than receiving a punch in the face from the other side. I just don’t like seeing our discourse become crude with pseudo-swear words. It’s the same thing with Obama’s “kick ass” “plug the damn hole” and I think he’s said “hell” recently, too. It’s crass from statesmen. Especially from Republicans who are the “family-values” party.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 3, 2010 at 9:58 PM

In other words, I want low-down dirty actions from Republicans against the Dems, not pseudo-swear words. I’m the most partisan conservative one will find, I loathe bi-partisanship, just be dignified about it.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Jenfidel on December 3, 2010 at 8:21 AM

So according to you, just because I think Boehner ought not use pseudo-swear words, I’m a Dem? Funny, funny stuff.

Try again, Jen. I’ve been a conservative Republican since I was eleven years old.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM

The people pouring cash into political coffers to lower taxes on the wealthy are trust fund families that don’t know how to create jobs or grow the economy but will go to hell and back to protect their inherited fortunes.

bayam

The hell you say….these people try to keep from having their money stolen? Get the f outta here? Who do they think they are, trying to hang on to THEIR money and all?

You’re absolutely right…the Waltons know nothing about creating jobs, lol. How dare these evil rich people try and keep THEIR money when they could pour it down the rat hole of government instead, where it is guaranteed to grow jack sheet. After all, it is right there in the Constitution that government has the right to take your money if you don’t use it to create jobs. It’s right there in between the right to abortion and the good and plenty welfare clause.

You’re an idiot. There’s just no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

xblade on December 3, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Yes, Robert Rubin’s economic team which advised Clinton to raise taxes. One of many steps that lead to one of the most robust growth periods in US history.

And not one second of that period of growth had anything to do with taxes being higher. You may as well say Clinton’s White House blow job was responsible for the growth because it happened at the same time.

xblade on December 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

I’m really starting to love Boehner. I think he is the right man for the job.

Elisa on December 4, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Bush pushed through tax cuts for the richest despite protest from within his own party, while promising job growth

Hmmm. If the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich, then how can the Democrats be extending any middle class tax cuts?

Getting hard to keep your story straight?

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 4, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2