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

with only three Republicans voting yes — Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan, and our old friend Ron Paul

I’m stuck in Ron Paul’s district unfortunately. I’m sad to say I voted for him in the election, but in my defense, I also voted for one of his challengers in the GOP primary.

Doughboy on December 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I wonder what the Senate will do with that.

Queen0fCups on December 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Let the Bush tax cuts expire and let the next congress pass them and make ‘em retroactive.

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM

I’m stuck in Ron Paul’s district unfortunately. I’m sad to say I voted for him in the election, but in my defense, I also voted for one of his challengers in the GOP primary.

Doughboy on December 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Did you know that he was a collaborator with Code Pink, MoveOn & IVAW as well?

Kermit on December 2, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Alas, hoping for a competent GOP that could refute the party of the rich thing with pointing out how the democrats used TARP to do god knows what…for rich people.

How about saying the GOP is the party for America, democrats are the party of the connected.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 5:07 PM

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

Um…why? The libertarian king is voting to raise taxes on wealth producers? Or on any Americans for that matter?

amerpundit on December 2, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Let the Bush tax cuts expire and let the next congress pass them and make ‘em retroactive.

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Yes- I think this is the plan- let the wicked witch have one last proletarian gesture and reboot it in 6 weeks.

jjshaka on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Alas, hoping for a competent GOP that could refute the party of the rich thing with pointing out how the democrats used TARP to do god knows what…for rich people.

Why not set the standard of not pandering to any of the wealthy? 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.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Nancy doesn’t mind. She lives in an alternate botox reality.

GarandFan on December 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM

*pssst* You, yeah you

Ron Paul ALSO luuuuuuvs him some earmarks.

catmman on December 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Why not set the standard of not pandering to any of the wealthy? 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.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Reminds me of this.

amerpundit on December 2, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Meanwhile…..as the Liberal Wagons are busy circling
above Hopey’s deep underground Progressive bunker,it is,

OUT OF TOUCH,
FLIPPING THE POLITICAL BIRD TO THE AMERICAN VOTERS,

Hopey/Changey’s: ITS THE MESSAGE STUPID,THE BITTERS
AND CLINGERS JUST DON’T APPRECIATE WHAT I’M DOIN FOR
THEM,ans after all,THEY’RE JUST TOO DAM* STUPID TO RUN
THEIR OWN DAM* LIVES!

YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD THANK ME–Hopey!!

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Did anyone expect anything different?
Pelosi is still in control so the House is going to use this as a class warfare issue. Yet, this will not help either the economy or jobs.

Kini on December 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Why on earth would Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan, and Ron Paulnut vote with the Demorats on a bill that’s merely a San Fran Nan hail mary political move? Did she promise them a complimentary Botox treatment?

anXdem on December 2, 2010 at 5:17 PM

How about reminding Americans that the feds could take 100% of everything that everyone earns and it STILL wouldn’t be enough to even dent the gaia-awful spending bill that they have heaped upon our poor heads.

Enjoy your last gasp, trash head dems, the end is coming. Sadly, it will probably end with DREAM, crap trade, card check, stimulus 2, a 400 week extension of unemployment bennies, etc.

Bishop on December 2, 2010 at 5:17 PM

The vote means nothing beyond proof that the dems learned zip last month. The vote will be reversed in about a month when the adults regain control and the hacks join the unemployment line…

JIMV on December 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM

GarandFan on December 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Oops. If I’d refresh the page more often, I would’ve seen your Botox comment before I posted mine.

anXdem on December 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Bush pushed through tax cuts for the richest

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Liar. Your own party’s desperate actions here prove it.

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Crapulent ChickenSh*t and Mezmerizing Liberal
Kabucki Stripper Pole Political Dance Manouver!!

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Who cares how the lame d$ck House voted? They are irrelevant in the near term.

David in ATL on December 2, 2010 at 5:21 PM

The Weekly Standard’s headline: “House Democrats Vote to Increase Taxes.”

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

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

Pelosi X 20 million = California.

Sad to say, but she and her kind out here in rainbow/skittle land are sinking this country. Ya better cut Cali out and set it adrift before the rest of the country rots from within.

jbh45 on December 2, 2010 at 5:22 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Tell us all about the lower income people who have hired you throughout your life.

kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Why not set the standard of not pandering to any of the wealthy? 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.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Reminds me of this.

amerpundit on December 2, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Great, another armchair capitalist. A man who knows more than the same silicon valley entrepreneurs who broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy. It’s fitting that you chose a video from Europe, as your dream is clearly to achieve Europe’s divide between the rich and every one else.

Today’s wealth is concentrated in urban areas, where only a small percentage of the wealthy are actively starting businesses or creating jobs based on their own personal wealth. It’s a world of investment bankers, stock brokers, lawyers… it ain’t your little world of Mayberry.

If you want to help entrepreneurs and generate job growth, then target taxes to people actually focused on entrepreneurship, not the Paris Hiltons and stock brokers of the world.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Remember how the Republican HealthCare Summit went,and
how arrogant Hopey was,and how he treated John McCain!
=======================================================
Obama Vs McCain at Health Care Summit “We are not campaigning anymore”!!!

…..the election is over!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EP24IfrMgM

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:24 PM

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

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

So by your definition, tax rates going up are not tax increases? Perhaps a course in remedial math might be in order?

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Question — will the extension of these tax cuts show up in the CBO’s projected deficits for 2011-2012?

As I recall, each of those years has a projected deficit of around $1 trillion. I’m gonna guess here that the CBO included all the new tax increases in making their projections, and that with them gone the deficits will climb to 1.4 or 1.5 trillion per year, just like 2009 and 2010.

I’m not criticizing the extensions, just pointing out that the overspending is structural and must be addressed ASAP.

GnuBreed on December 2, 2010 at 5:25 PM

The vote means nothing beyond proof that the dems learned zip last month. The vote will be reversed in about a month when the adults regain control and the hacks join the unemployment line…

JIMV on December 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM

I’m probably missing something, but won’t that be too late? Will Obama go along with a retroactive extension of all the tax cuts? (Seriously…am I missing something?)

capitalist piglet on December 2, 2010 at 5:25 PM

bayam, what are you talking about?

The only thing it achieved was a larger divide between the rich and middle class.

The unemployment rate at the time pelois took over was 4-5%

The rich got richer because everyone got richer.

Some people talk about squeezing the middle class and have no idea what it means except for some hazy memory of steel workers or something in the 50′s.

Ignore the growing federal employee class, pampered for life by my taxes, the growing unemployable, overly educated class that used to make up the middle class. The 10-20 million illegal immigrants performing outsourcing right here on our own soil. Consider the millions of inner city types permanently on welfare. Consider that high tax and regulations for corporations have moved jobs overseas. Consider that corporate crony democrats have created regulatory schemes (and waivers) that favor only large, mega-corporations over small business.

All that, and all people can think of is tax cuts? We know the theories and the natural laboratories of economics where the Laffer Curver is expressed and oops, federal revenue typically maxes out at 19% regardless of the top rate, there is no case for high taxes.

discuss.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Is it just me or in the second clip does Joe Crowley sound exactly like “Teacups” Grayson?

pain train on December 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Tell us all about the lower income people who have hired you throughout your life.
kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Shut it. Everyone knows that the small businessman who grosses $300k per year and gives himself $50k to live on is one of the wealthy jet-setters.

Bishop on December 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Did anyone expect anything different?

Kini on December 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Kini:NO,THE LIBERALS still think that they are in POWER,
STILL IN TOTAL CONTROL!:)

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Bishop on December 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Filthy capitalists. They need to share all their weath./

kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 5:27 PM

So by your definition, tax rates going up are not tax increases? Perhaps a course in remedial math might be in order?

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:25 PM

The Bush tax cuts were passed with a sunset clause. Doing nothing is not “raising taxes,” the tax cut had an end date. Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

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

Tell us all about the lower income people who have hired you throughout your life.

kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM

One of the best was Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, and like most other great entrepreneurs, he supports higher taxes on the wealthy. If you’re building great companies, your main concern is the fiscal health of the United States and incomes of people living in the middle class.

Fact- giving tax breaks to the wealthy hasn’t lead to job creation over the past 8 years.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

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

Only in your world. Everyone else seems to understand that if you tax rate goes up, you got a tax increase.

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Today’s wealth is concentrated in urban areas, where only a small percentage of the wealthy are actively starting businesses or creating jobs based on their own personal wealth

Hehehehehehehe. I KNEW we could close down the banks; no one to lend money to or extend credit.

Bishop on December 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM

To those who say “who cares if the house passes this, they’re irrelevent in the near term”. I say, if the Senate passes it and Obammy signs it, have fun trying to undo it with the Senate still in Dems hands. This chicken shidt bill passing today sucks azz!

Expect more cramdown.

/torches and pitchforks baby!!

44Magnum on December 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Fact- giving tax breaks to the wealthy hasn’t lead to job creation over the past 8 years.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM

It led to job creation in the first five years, then the democrats took over congress, and we all know the rest of the story.

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Here’s an idea: Let’s ask all the already-wealthy if they would be willing to have their current assets proactively taxed at the new rates they would inflict on the rest of us.

I’m not impressed by a guy worth $100 million, someone who could live quite comfortably on the interest alone, advocating that from now on he is willing to pay higher taxes.

Bishop on December 2, 2010 at 5:33 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM

My concern is for the people of America. I never received a job from a poor man. It’s the small businesses of America that drive our economic machine. I’ve watched you hijack enconomic thread after economic thread. You use a whole lot of empty words in an attempt to defend this administration’s failed Marxist philosophy of spreading the wealth. Americans are fed up with the tyranny of the minority. Didn’t you and the administration you seem to admire so much learn anything at all on November 2nd?

kingsjester on December 2, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I sent this tips a few days ago,so here is more OUTRAGE!!
***********************************************************

Here is a Liberal,who is on a power trip,and is refusing to give GOP Rep.Buyer the time of day on the floor,and nobody
is objecting!!!

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

Video: GOP Rep. Buyer Blasts Acting Dem Speaker: “This is why the People have Thrown You Out”

http://www.theospark.net/2010/12/video-gop-rep-buyer-blasts-acting-dem.html

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Fact- giving tax breaks to the wealthy hasn’t lead to job creation over the past 8 years.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM

In other words, it’s all Bush’s fault?

Why are you confining your “giving tax breaks to the wealthy” criteria to just the past 8 years? I think we all know the answer.

Del Dolemonte on December 2, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Fact- giving tax breaks to the wealthy hasn’t lead to job creation over the past 8 years.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM

It led to job creation in the first five years, then the democrats took over congress, and we all know the rest of the story.

But that level of nuance doesn’t help bayam make sweeping generalizations and statements…therefore it doesn’t exist. Lib argument technique #2, absence of counter argument, refusal to understand arguments (like the Glass-Stegall types who fail to understand G-S made things better in responding to crisis).

You can’t blame the mortgage securitization crisis on tax cuts. You can blame it on the rules and lawsuits that made it so. You can blame SarbOx for making MBS’s the only new option to invest in. But you can’t blame taxes.

Remember, recessions are cyclical…something happens, the market loses capital, needs time to recover. Depressions are policy driven where the market is prevented from recovery.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Today’s wealth is concentrated in urban areas, where only a small percentage of the wealthy are actively starting businesses or creating jobs based on their own personal wealth. It’s a world of investment bankers, stock brokers, lawyers… it ain’t your little world of Mayberry.

If you want to help entrepreneurs and generate job growth, then target taxes to people actually focused on entrepreneurship, not the Paris Hiltons and stock brokers of the world.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:24 PM

You really think Paris Hilton and Wall Street stockbrokers are going to pay these higher tax rates?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The only people who will actually pay them are high-wage-earning people, like doctors and engineers and chemists, and small business owners – you know, people who are actually PRODUCTIVE – who cannot afford fancy lawyers and accountants to move their money to the Cayman Islands to escape high taxes.

rockmom on December 2, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Let’s all send Fancy Nancy some chicken diapers to control all that chicken crap she’s spewing :)

ornery_independent on December 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Remember, recessions are cyclical…something happens, the market loses capital, needs time to recover. Depressions are policy driven where the market is prevented from recovery.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 5:37 PM

+1000

rockmom on December 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Chicken diapers…

ornery_independent on December 2, 2010 at 5:41 PM

The rich got richer because everyone got richer.

You’re either extremely ignorant or flat-out lying. Every stat shows that median incomes for the middle class have fallen across the board, even before the Great Recession started.

At the same time, the wealthier have seen their share total income go through the roof. The rich have become far richer, while everyone has suffered.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf&pli=1

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM

bayam

Dr. Sowell explains it very nicely. You should take your meds before you go off w/your nuance on taxation.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/02/the-truth-behind-the-tax-cut-lies/print/

JAM on December 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Pelosi’s little Demon Chicks are comin soon to da House
to Roost!!

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Interesting how Democrats spent 8 years whining about the 2001/2003 tax cuts being simply tax cuts for the rich, and now, when they want to extend the majority of them so that the middle tax doesn’t lose their tax cuts that…..Bush gave them.

William Teach on December 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Just remind people that the feds and Fed were happy to give billions upon billions of dollars in loans to foreign banks, central banks (governments), and US banks but the Dems aren’t willing to let small businesses in the US and the so-called rich keep a little of their OWN money. That’s a winning argument in my view.

uncalheels on December 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM

At the same time, the wealthier have seen their share total income go through the roof. The rich have become far richer, while everyone has suffered.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM

It is none of your business, nor mine, how much anybody else makes.

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

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

Do you work for the Onion?

I’ll make this real easy for you: when a rate goes up, regardless of the reason, it’s increasing.

If you’re really trying to argue otherwise, then I tip my hat to the spinmaster.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

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

Nice to see a product of Public Education amongst us.
You math skills amaze me. When Bush lowered the tax rate, that was a Cut. If that cut expires and the tax rate go up, that a tax increase.

Even more simple for you. Lets say you were taxed at 35% of you salary before the cuts. Bush lowers the tax rate to 25% of your salary, with an expiration date. The date has arrived and your tax rate returns to 35% of your salary.

That is an increase in taxes.

Now, if a train leaves Chicago…..

Kini on December 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Also, yeah, I want to hear Ron Paul’s explanation for this.

MadisonConservative on December 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Today’s wealth is concentrated in urban areas, where only a small percentage of the wealthy are actively starting businesses or creating jobs…

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:24 PM

You must live in San Fran Nan’s parallel universe.

My mother owns a small business that gross’s over 1.5 million annually. After employee salaries, inventory, utilities and a variety of other expenses, her net profit is under 100K. She’s one of the “urban rich” on whom you want to increase taxes. How many of her seven employees do you imagine she’ll be able to keep after the tax hikes, genius? Go back to your hole.

anXdem on December 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Chicken diapers…

ornery_independent on December 2, 2010 at 5:41 PM

ornery_independent:Thats a nice shade of MoonBat El Code
Pinko Pink!!!!

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:47 PM

who cannot afford fancy lawyers and accountants to move their money to the Cayman Islands to escape high taxes.

Or someplace closer such as South Dakota as a certain former senator from Minnesota does with his family money. His name rhymes with “Crazy Inbred Coward”.

Ok, “Mark Dayton” doesn’t really rhyme with that.

Bishop on December 2, 2010 at 5:47 PM

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

Letting some of the Bush cuts expire means that tax rates go up on some earners, and that is a tax increase. Duh.

You see, the word “increase” means “to go up.” How about that!

Emperor Norton on December 2, 2010 at 5:47 PM

She would not allow any alternatives to be presented. That is not a win, that is a perversion of the system and how it’s supposed to work. I wonder if she’ll ever figure that out. No—she won’t. She’s that taken with what she sees as her mission. I’ve been hearing that the Senate does not agree though. We’ll wait and see. When this idiotic lame duck session is over it can and must be undone. It is too harmful to the job market. The harm this woman and her supporters have done to the country in the last two years cannot be over-estimated.

jeanie on December 2, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Every stat shows that median incomes for the middle class have fallen across the board, even before the Great Recession started.

And yet, they have more material wealth and live longer.

I think that there are more hyper-rich types in America because we sell stuff to the whole world, they’re leveraged their earnings while you only got one broom to push.

I also think that there’s suffering because free gov’t money has allowed people apart from the middle class to become upper middle class when they’ve historically (and based on their market value) been lower-middle…
union thugs
college professors
college admin types
government union goons.

So, for a lawyer to pay $100K for an education that 2 decades ago would’ve been $20K because of gov’t interference isn’t tax cuts fault. It’s flooding the zone with money. The lawyer’s average income fell as more people compete for same jobs but their debt load quadrupled to get there.

But who is middle class to you?

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 5:50 PM

all of this is total bs. the problem is that we don’t have enough demand (which is why prices aren’t going up)

people are afraid, people are unemployed…people are locked into their houses trying to pay down debit. Or people are locked in their houses waiting for foreclosure

it is not a cheery time. the Dims that love the unemployment because it creates jobs are freaks. but, really, a small increase in taxes won’t change things materially anyway.

Get rid of the freaks…the healthcare, the raw hatred for businesses that you can’t coopt…the FinReg, just stop the policy overreach. I think the R win will help assuage some of the fear of Obama and his freaks

Let the system heal itself

r keller on December 2, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Tax Rates
=============

US tax rateS

http://www.taxrates.cc/html/us-tax-rates.html

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Don’t tell bayam or Proud Rino to read Dr. Sowell… unless he has written something in comic book format. While I’m sure he could do that and make it make sense, he hasn’t yet.

either orr on December 2, 2010 at 5:53 PM

You can’t blame the mortgage securitization crisis on tax cuts. You can blame it on the rules and lawsuits that made it so. You can blame SarbOx for making MBS’s the only new option to invest in.

I’m not trying to blame tax cuts for lack of job growth. It was people on the right who claimed that that deep tax cuts for the wealthy would lead to significant job growth under Bush. But it never occurred. You can push your pet ideological theories all day about the absolute wonders of tax cuts for all people earning over $500k a year- that’s one thing- but the facts are something else:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html

I do believe that tax cuts can help create jobs- but you have to target those cuts at growing businesses and entrepreneurs.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM

My mother owns a small business that gross’s over 1.5 million annually. After employee salaries, inventory, utilities and a variety of other expenses, her net profit is under 100K.

It’s nice that you’re proud of your mommy. Tax cuts should target her and small business owners like her. I have trouble believing that higher taxes on people earning over $500k would hurt her, if her net profit is under $100k.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:57 PM

I also think that there’s suffering because free gov’t money has allowed people apart from the middle class to become upper middle class when they’ve historically (and based on their market value) been lower-middle…

college professors

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 5:50 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

Bush pushed through tax cuts for the richest

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Liar. Your own party’s desperate actions here prove it.

Vashta.Nerada on December 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Actually, while it had not exactly hit main street just yet, our entire economy was in the toilet from the Clinton Era. The Bush tax cuts stimulated the manufacturing sector in capital investment and expansion of manufacturing facilities. This created jobs which absorbed all the manufacturing jobs lost during Clinton’s last two years. Few people realize how many manufacturing jobs were actually lost during that time as facilities were shuttered and called “mothballed” for a minimum of 5 years before they could be demolished.

The economy roared for small private in the countryside manufacturers as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Ron Paul is caught screwing the pooch yet again. How is Lew Rockwell going to explain this one away.

Kermit on December 2, 2010 at 6:01 PM

I’m not trying to blame tax cuts for lack of job growth. It was people on the right who claimed that that deep tax cuts for the wealthy would lead to significant job growth under Bush. But it never occurred. You can push your pet ideological theories all day about the absolute wonders of tax cuts for all people earning over $500k a year- that’s one thing- but the facts are something else:

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I was around in the lost decade. I can clearly remember all these “help wanted” signs all over the place popping up in the mid-lost decade. There were jobs to be had but very little people to fill them.
Something doesn’t add up.

Electrongod on December 2, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Tax Rates
=============

2010 Federal Withholding Tax Table
Revised December 17, 2009

Single persons

6,050.00——- 10%
10,425.00—— 15%
36,050.00—— 25%
67,700.00——-27%
84,450.00——-30%
87,700.00——-28%
173,900.00——33%
375,700.00——35%
===========================

Married Persons

13,750.——–10%
24,500.00——15%
75,750.00——25%
94,050.00——27%
124,050.00—–25%
145,050.00—–28%
217,000.00—–33%
381,400.00—–35%

http://www.suburbancomputer.com/tips_tax.htm

canopfor on December 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM

We don’t WANT them temporary, for just another few years. Boehner needs to push for them being made permanent. I’m tired of this being an issue every few years, and the Dems trot out ‘Party of the Rich’, (although considering the GE bailout revelation, I don’t see how THAT will hold), and say it’s not an increase it’s an expiration.

Tired of these stupid games. Extend them for 10 years, or permanently.

linlithgow on December 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Let the Bush era tax breaks expire then on Jan 1, 2011 implement a compromise among the house, senate and president and refund any excess taxes withheld in January. Certainly a pain but it will get Pelosi and that other POS Hoyer out of the loop. Also, Pelosi and Hoyer should be kicked to the wall and forever ignored.

rplat on December 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM

That cite you link to doesn’t prove much of anything, except it says want you Leftists want to believe. As some of the comments at the link correctly point out, it’s inconclusive.

Del Dolemonte on December 2, 2010 at 6:14 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.

Your education is not related to your market value.

Many entrepreneurs become successful regardless of educational background. It’s hard work that does it, plus luck and product. You’re mistaking credentialing and education.

Days gone by, being a highly educated professor may have meant job security and other benefits but a lower income. Today, thanks to inflation (tuition costs quadrupling while inflation has been steady) of tuition, administrators and educators make more than they used to.

For instance, professor Ward Churchill earned $110K salary and god knows what kind of pension promise. That’s upper class, you tweedy twit. Especially for such an insulated position.

If you college professors were making $30K, then I’d weep for your “lowest paid, highest educated” crack.

Simply put, education doesn’t equal market value. Tell it to all the idiots who graduated from your overprices schools with Bachelors in Arts for underwater feminist scream therapy and decontrstuctivist America bashing. They got $100K in debt for a degree that’s worth squat.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Joe Crowley……the new Alan Grayson?

PappyD61 on December 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM

B, the unemployment rate was 4.7% ish in 2006, what more do you expect? Full unemployment? There are too many of anXdem’s students out there with worthless degrees to reach full unemployment.

Look, if you’ve bothered to read anything conservative about current economic woes, you’d know that there are several things we harp about, tax being one thing.

There’s also regulatory uncertainty, litigation climates, credit availability.

Reagan, for example, didn’t just cut taxes, he cut regulatory burdens and apparently made the atmosphere for business “certain.”

Finally, to what are you comparing this all to? Many Eurotrash countries have been stagnant for decades having high tax, high welfare state models.

Their middle class includes families where people own one small TV, or one suit, not a plasma and cell phones.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM

I like the Boehner vid. He’ll make a great SPeaker.

Yakko77 on December 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Probably the first thing the dolts in DC have done that’s been beneficial to the public in years. Unfortunately, it’s greatly overshadowed by Obamacare alone, never mind all the other tomfoolery.

Dark-Star on December 2, 2010 at 6:21 PM

and yes, there’s poverty in America. I think your census report would confirm that this poverty is mobile, meaning it’s situational, the poor being:
young people (out of college or out of high school, just starting out)
single mothers
recent immigrants (10-20 million, remember? And they’re driving down the market value for traditional performers of their jobs).
hardluck cases like the handicapped.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 6:22 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I remember distinctly when the left screamed because unemployment under Bush was creeping up. For a good portion of his Presidency it went down, with it coming back up towards the end.

But even when it was in the high 4′s & 5′s the screed from media was how bad unemployment was. This is years after the tax cuts have been implemented.

As problems started to emerge and the mortgage crisis began taking shape (and problems in Europe were brewing), unemployment went up.

Tax cuts help everyone, because when people have money, they spend. Not everyone is Bill Gates or George Soros, where a few hundred thousand doesn’t make a difference.

I have friends who are successful and know a number who are fairly wealthy. With the exception of 1, they all still work, and there is a huge difference between someone worth $5 – $10 million and someone like Warren Buffet. A lot of their wealth is tied up in projects, companies or other investments. There’s not a lot of buffer if something you’ve dumped a lot of cash in goes south. When the economy is good, and taxes and regulation are predictable, they do more, invest more. When it’s not they sell off assets, (real estate, etc), and conserve. It’s human nature, even if you’re successful.

By the way… if someone hasn’t taken their wealth out of your pocket, why is it your damn business how much they make and who the HELL are you to punish them by having a different set of rules for them?

linlithgow on December 2, 2010 at 6:23 PM

three Republicans voting yes — Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan, and our old friend Ron Paul.

Oh don’t worry. Your glorious, over-tanned, crybaby House Leader is going to get Paul back for voting Yea on a tax cut (the horrors!) by denying him the chairmanship on the Monetary Policy Subcommittee.

Rae on December 2, 2010 at 6:23 PM

and BTW, whatever else the value is or your opinion of the Bush tax cuts, president sparklefarts and Granny McBotox and the Nevada Cryptkeeper had 2 years and 4 years to take care of this.

They suck, they dropped the ball, and now here we are using a bunch of lame ducks to do something months before the sunset provision takes place.

bad leadership by the dems…

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM

When will the gavel and jet keys be pried from the clutches of her gnarled claws?

OmahaConservative on December 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Hey batam

at least the private sector lives in the real world where a dollar is a dollar

the Feds take a dollar in taxes and they use that to justify give times that in spending or more

less money in the hands of megalomaniacs is always good policy

as for the poor, if that is your measuring stick I guess when all are as broke as them what a wonderful world it will be

Sonosam on December 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM

This poverty in American study be Heritage a few years ago (based on Census and other data), is illuminating.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/Understanding-Poverty-in-America

linlithgow on December 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM

if someone hasn’t taken their wealth out of your pocket, why is it your damn business how much they make and who the HELL are you to punish them by having a different set of rules for them?

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

I’m not trying to blame tax cuts for lack of job growth.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Good lord.

Chuck Schick on December 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Friendly forewarning: you’ll need sources, preferably vetted right-wing ones, if you want any response besides poo-flinging from the usual suspects. This is a rather touchy subject.

Dark-Star on December 2, 2010 at 6:32 PM

The Bush tax cuts were passed with a sunset clause. Doing nothing is not “raising taxes,” the tax cut had an end date. Letting tax cuts expire ≠ raising taxes.

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

If the tax rate increases, what do you call it? A tax cut?

I know, just like a decrease in the amount of a proposed spending increase, like 5% increase instead of 7%, is a program cut. Right?

belad on December 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM

that’s right, dark-star, no lancet studies are blindly accepted here. No massaged climate change reports, written to hide the decline or written to ignore “bad-actor” weather stations. No security assessment of Iran written to embarrass the president from taking action against Iran, even though Iran is seeking nukes.

whatevs, you lose.

joeindc44 on December 2, 2010 at 6:41 PM

If Eric Schmidt of Google wants to pay an additional 20 million to the Feds, there’s nothing stopping him. Or Buffett. Or Gates. They can all fork over as much as they want. It’s even tax deductible!

So why should everyone else pay for them? Bayam can’t explain that. If you maroons think we will be having unicorn’s crapping out rainbows and skittles for everyone if the government gets more money, then YOU START FIRST! Put your money where your mouth is, hypocrites. Once you contribute 50 percent of your income to the feds and state, then I’ll look at your reasoning why I should have to as well. Because my money goes to my landlord, my grocer, and my other bills. That money goes to jobs. When the gubmint gets it, it goes to study the arsenic laden impact of a swallow in Niger or something, or else a fat bonus to George Soros. Why should I be happy about doing more of that?

Vanceone on December 2, 2010 at 6:42 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

This has been touched on many times. 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? These guys can send any amount of additional revenue they choose and the IRS will accept it. They want to make sure that all those that would like to achieve their kind of wealth, can’t get there from here because they want to “pull up the ladder”. They don’t want the rest of us to have the same environment that they had when they made their wealth.

I don’t hear a single one of those rich guys asking for the IRS to levy a one-time surcharge of say, 1% to 2% on NET WORTH, do you? These guys are just a lot of hot gas looking for their 15 minutes.

belad on December 2, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Why not set the standard of not pandering to any of the wealthy? 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.

bayam on December 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

I tried very hard to not answer your post, quoted above, but doggone it, I’m a small manufacturer and have been for over 50 years.

I watched the trial lawyers ruin the product liability provision, the Naderites and the EPA destroy our auto mfg. businesses, the FDA tear the heart out of our pharmaceutical production, the Congress and four Presidents, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama work their hardest to line their friends’ and own pockets with MY hard work, while at the same time doing their level best to completely destroy ANY vestige of incentive for us small manufacturers to continue THE ONLY REAL TAX-REVENUE PRODUCING WORK EVER KNOWN — value-added manufacturing.

EVERY other type of business OWES ITS SOUL TO THE MANUFACTURERS. Dispute it if you can, support us if you can’t.

The factories I’ve OWNED made heavy-duty foresty equipment, material-reduction equipment, recreational and commercial boats, countless industrial products for other maufacturers, military equipment, military and commercial aircraft components, a few things for the space program, and now I make agricultural equipment.

I’ve provided good, well-paying jobs over the years for at least several thousand people. That means their families had houses, and clothes, and food, and cars, and toys, and vacations, and FRICKIN’ HEALTH INSURANCE.

Since I’ve started this, my current venture about 15 years ago, I will be honest with you — I’ve automated SO much, that I have no need whatsoever for any employees, have a fine profit margin, and am weathering the recession quite nicely, thank you.

I can ALSO tell you that I have three brand-new ag-products off the all designed and ready for prototype. They will be serious winners in their markets.

I WILL NOT bring them to prototype, and certainly not to market under the current market and regulatory conditions we are now suffering under. It would be economic suicide. What’s even worse, is the stone-cold FACT that these products are labor-intensive to make. That means I would be hiring about 15 people to start, and, in a year or two, will be up over 100 people.

But I won’t do it. I have NO idea what that idiot in the White House is going to do to squash my independence, steal my money, and burden my employees; much less what his Cabinet, and other Agencies are going to slap me with.

I’m NOT a big company guy. I’ve always been small. I like it that way.

Those boys and girls in the gummint, for the very most part, have NO idea what I nor any other small timers do, other than send them a check four times a year, pay both sides of our Social Security, and buy our own health insurance.

But they’re going to put us in the basket with Caterpillar, and Deere, and Ford, and Boeing, and GE and all the other big-time lobbyist-paying, golf-playing slimeball Congressional fixers BECAUSE TO THEM WE’RE ALL THE FRICKIN’ SAME.

We’re not. And they can just urinate up a rope for their extra tax-revenue from my three new products, ’cause I won’t bring ‘em out until things straighten up for ALL of us.

You wanna talk about your divide between the rich and the middle-class, buddy? People like YOU are making it worse by the continuing exercise of your ignorance.

Like my saitned pappy used to say a lot, “The stupidity of the individual is inexcusable”.

He was right.

Farmer on December 2, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2