Tax Increases Coming on January 1st

[Reality_Check]

I guess the Republicans are only concerned with lower taxes when it comes to rich people.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44218846/ns/politics/t/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block/


News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.

[BJJ-Blue]

I guess the Republicans are only concerned with lower taxes when it comes to rich people.

We shall see.

It's scheduled to end, the only way to stop it is to pass a bill not letting it expire. So it will need Democrat support in the House, and it must also pass the Senate which is Democrat controlled.

In short, if the community organizer wants it and the Democrats fall into line behind him (which they always do) it will clear the Senate. It will clear the House if the House Democrats vote for an extension and they are joined by the Tea Party Republicans, regardless of whether the RINOs want it or not. Of course I'll be stunned if ANY Republicans do not vote to extend the tax cuts.

And remember, the only reason it's temporary is because the Democrats refused to pass permanent tax cuts during Bush's presidency. So if you do not want this tax cut to expire, you and George W Bush are in agreement. ;)

[solo1]

You know the problem with class envy? it exposes the most rampant losers in a society. Everytime the whining about the rich dont pay, the rich this, rich that, it exposes that youve never done anything with your lives and are jealous of someone elses success.
How about taxing to death every single welfare recipient, take thier voting rights away and thier property away until they start producing, limit the number of children they can have, take away the rights and privileges others take for granted? why should someone who lives off your confiscated tax dollars be able to cancel out your vote on how that money is spent? when there are more of them, then you, then what?

The same is being said about the group that produces the product, creates the jobs and hires the workers, tax them to death they can afford it. Take from my neighbor so i can sit on my good for nothing ass and do nothing.
Those collecting money from the government, who first had to confiscate it from a person who produced it, are good for nothing parasites, but libs talk about them in terms of such noblity. They are "less fortunate" , the "underclass" no, they are not less fortunate they are less driven, so for that they should be rewarded with the fruits of anothers labor?
They produce nothing create nothing, except generation after generation of hand out grubbing parasites, and future occupiers of our penal system, but not a word about them producing something.
Instead the guy that runs a business, makes a decent living is a scumbag cause he has an issue handing over his hard earned income to some POS living on the dole. Depsite the crap youve happily been spoon fed the majority of folks with money earned it, went to work took risks, educated themselves, they didnt steal it, and my wealth doesnt belong to you, the government or the piece of crap waving a sign on tv that the rich dont pay thier fair share. The reality is the poor pay next to nothing, get the most from government services and live parasitically from a smaller and smaller pool of producers.

[Reality_Check]

And remember, the only reason it's temporary is because the Democrats refused to pass permanent tax cuts during Bush's presidency. So if you do not want this tax cut to expire, you and George W Bush are in agreement. ;)

Um...no. The tax cuts passed by President Bush were designed to sunset after 10 years. Designed and passed (via reconciliation, hence the sunset clause) by Republicans, who controlled the Senate, the House and the White House in 2001 and 2003. So, the Republicans refused to pass permanent tax cuts.

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...no. The tax cuts passed by President Bush were designed to sunset after 10 years. Designed and passed (via reconciliation, hence the sunset clause) by Republicans, who controlled the Senate, the House and the White House in 2001 and 2003. So, the Republicans refused to pass permanent tax cuts.

They had to do that to get it to pass without Senate Democrats being able to block it:

"One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001) is that its provisions were designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed, on January 1, 2011. These provisions were extended for two years under the 2010 Tax Act. The sunset provision allowed EGTRRA to sidestep the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration."

Had the Democrats not threatened to block it using the "Byrd rule" they would have been able to have been passed on a permanet basis. They had to be temporary because of Democrat opposition to permanent tax cuts.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4032

[BJJ-Blue]

And one more thing.

You liberals have been saying Bush only cut taxes for "the rich". Yet you are now saying this Bush tax cut set to expire was a tax cut the non-rich received. So that means the old line of 'Bush only cut taxes on the rich' is incorrect, right?

[SimonM]

Looking forward to seeing this thread locked too

[SoCo KungFu]

You know the problem with class envy? it exposes the most rampant losers in a society. Everytime the whining about the rich dont pay, the rich this, rich that, it exposes that youve never done anything with your lives and are jealous of someone elses success.
How about taxing to death every single welfare recipient, take thier voting rights away and thier property away until they start producing, limit the number of children they can have, take away the rights and privileges others take for granted? why should someone who lives off your confiscated tax dollars be able to cancel out your vote on how that money is spent? when there are more of them, then you, then what?

The same is being said about the group that produces the product, creates the jobs and hires the workers, tax them to death they can afford it. Take from my neighbor so i can sit on my good for nothing ass and do nothing.
Those collecting money from the government, who first had to confiscate it from a person who produced it, are good for nothing parasites, but libs talk about them in terms of such noblity. They are "less fortunate" , the "underclass" no, they are not less fortunate they are less driven, so for that they should be rewarded with the fruits of anothers labor?
They produce nothing create nothing, except generation after generation of hand out grubbing parasites, and future occupiers of our penal system, but not a word about them producing something.
Instead the guy that runs a business, makes a decent living is a scumbag cause he has an issue handing over his hard earned income to some POS living on the dole. Depsite the crap youve happily been spoon fed the majority of folks with money earned it, went to work took risks, educated themselves, they didnt steal it, and my wealth doesnt belong to you, the government or the piece of crap waving a sign on tv that the rich dont pay thier fair share. The reality is the poor pay next to nothing, get the most from government services and live parasitically from a smaller and smaller pool of producers.

My you're one big fat ball of mouth breathing hate there aren't you?

I'm one of those people you so hate. You know what? I had to give 10 years of my life to the govt fighting wars on behalf of idiots like you just to even have a chance at an education. I've worked myself up from the gutter. I've been homeless. I worked 80+ hour work weeks while going to school on the side. And before its all said and done, I'll be one of the best surgeons in this country. If I choose to stay here that is, you ass clowns don't deserve it really. And guess what? The rich don't pay enough!

Now WTF have you done? Take your hate and go **** yourself. You know **** about the people you ***** about.

[BJJ-Blue]

Why blow up on the guy? He wasn't talking about people like you. He specifically was talking about people who sit on their butts and do nothing and people who don't produce anything. You don't fit that bill, you joined the military, worked 80+ hours a week, are furthering your education and planning on getting a high paying job. Hardly sitting on your butt and doing nothing.

But this conversation does beg the question; why should we workers have to pay for other people's housing, food, medical care etc?

[Reality_Check]

They had to do that to get it to pass without Senate Democrats being able to block it:

"One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001) is that its provisions were designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed, on January 1, 2011. These provisions were extended for two years under the 2010 Tax Act. The sunset provision allowed EGTRRA to sidestep the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration."

Had the Democrats not threatened to block it using the "Byrd rule" they would have been able to have been passed on a permanet basis. They had to be temporary because of Democrat opposition to permanent tax cuts.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4032

Um...the Democrats didn't threaten to use the Byrd Rule, as it is part of the rules of the Senate. If the Republicans had attempted to pass the bill without using reconciliation, or if the bill was not projected to significantly increase the deficit beyond a 10 year term, the Byrd Rule would not have come into effect. But since the bill would have significantly increased the deficit beyond a 10 year term, and the Republican leadership wanted to use reconciliation, the Byrd Rule was in effect.

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...the Democrats didn't threaten to use the Byrd Rule, as it is part of the rules of the Senate. If the Republicans had attempted to pass the bill without using reconciliation, or if the bill was not projected to significantly increase the deficit beyond a 10 year term, the Byrd Rule would not have come into effect. But since the bill would have significantly increased the deficit beyond a 10 year term, and the Republican leadership wanted to use reconciliation, the Byrd Rule was in effect.

Huh?

If the Democrats hadn't threatened to use the "Byrd Rule", the bill would have came to the floor and been voted on. And that bill was for permanent tax cuts. That original bill could have been (and was) stopped because it was able to be blocked with the "Byrd Rule". But that rule can't be exercised if no one chooses to exercise it. It's just an option. And the Democrats said they would exercise that option.


And I do ask that you answer this question:

You liberals have been saying Bush only cut taxes for "the rich". Yet you are now saying this Bush tax cut set to expire was a tax cut the non-rich received. So that means the old line of 'Bush only cut taxes on the rich' is incorrect, right?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Keep it civil guys and no personal insults.
Make your points and views and back them up if you can, but keep it civil and no insulting.

[Reality_Check]

Huh?

If the Democrats hadn't threatened to use the "Byrd Rule", the bill would have came to the floor and been voted on. And that bill was for permanent tax cuts. That original bill could have been (and was) stopped because it was able to be blocked with the "Byrd Rule". But that rule can't be exercised if no one chooses to exercise it. It's just an option. And the Democrats said they would exercise that option.


And I do ask that you answer this question:

You liberals have been saying Bush only cut taxes for "the rich". Yet you are now saying this Bush tax cut set to expire was a tax cut the non-rich received. So that means the old line of 'Bush only cut taxes on the rich' is incorrect, right?

No, reconciliation is the option. If that option is chosen, then it must conform to the Byrd Rule.

If you are so sure the Democrats threatened to "use" the Byrd Rule, you'll have present some evidence of them doing just that.

Um...the tax cut to which this thread referenced in my first post was the payroll tax cut implemented under the Obama Administration, it has nothing to do with the Bush Administration.

[BJJ-Blue]

If you are so sure the Democrats threatened to "use" the Byrd Rule, you'll have present some evidence of them doing just that.

Will do.

"Following the 2000 elections, both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by the Republicans. The Senate was evenly divided with 50 Republican senators and 50 Democratic senators. In drafting the tax act, Congress was aware of this political climate and the constraints of [section] 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is commonly known as the "Byrd rule.

The Byrd rule provides that a senator may raise a point of order against extraneous provisions of a reconciliation bill on the Senate floor. There are six different items that are deemed extraneous provisions by the Byrd rule, including any provision that would increase net outlays or decrease revenues for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure. If the point of order is sustained by the presiding officer of the Senate, then the extraneous provision will be stricken unless three-fifths of the senators vote to waive the Byrd rule. The Senate passed the tax act by a vote of 58-33. Congress choose to make the tax act subject to the Byrd rule in order to avoid a confrontation in the Senate. The effect of the Byrd rule was to require that the tax act contain sunset provisions. Therefore, the changes which were made by the tax act will disappear as of January 1, 2011, unless new legislation is enacted that either extends these provisions or permanently adds these provisions to the Internal Revenue Code."

Source:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sunset+and+the+Economic+Growth+and+Tax+Relief+Reco nciliation+Act+of...-a080900975

So had the point of order not been raised calling for the "Byrd rule", it would not have been used. And the GOP did not have the 60 votes needed to waive the "Byrd rule" and the Democrats needed to hit 60 did not vote to do so.* I'm shocked you're not refusing to accept these facts, as you are usually quite rational and able to accept facts that do not agree with your point of view.

*The Democrats were able to get the "Bryd rule" waived on the Obamacare bill because they did have 60 Senate seats at that time.

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...the tax cut to which this thread referenced in my first post was the payroll tax cut implemented under the Obama Administration, it has nothing to do with the Bush Administration.

My mistake (see I admit those, unlike certain other people :rolleyes:).

So why didn't the Democrats who controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency at that time vote to make those tax cuts that help the non-rich out permanent tax cuts instead of just temporary tax cuts?

[Reality_Check]

Will do.

"Following the 2000 elections, both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by the Republicans. The Senate was evenly divided with 50 Republican senators and 50 Democratic senators. In drafting the tax act, Congress was aware of this political climate and the constraints of [section] 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is commonly known as the "Byrd rule.

The Byrd rule provides that a senator may raise a point of order against extraneous provisions of a reconciliation bill on the Senate floor. There are six different items that are deemed extraneous provisions by the Byrd rule, including any provision that would increase net outlays or decrease revenues for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure. If the point of order is sustained by the presiding officer of the Senate, then the extraneous provision will be stricken unless three-fifths of the senators vote to waive the Byrd rule. The Senate passed the tax act by a vote of 58-33. Congress choose to make the tax act subject to the Byrd rule in order to avoid a confrontation in the Senate. The effect of the Byrd rule was to require that the tax act contain sunset provisions. Therefore, the changes which were made by the tax act will disappear as of January 1, 2011, unless new legislation is enacted that either extends these provisions or permanently adds these provisions to the Internal Revenue Code."

Source:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sunset+and+the+Economic+Growth+and+Tax+Relief+Reco nciliation+Act+of...-a080900975

So had the point of order not been raised calling for the "Byrd rule", it would not have been used. And the GOP did not have the 60 votes needed to waive the "Byrd rule" and the Democrats needed to hit 60 did not vote to do so.* I'm shocked you're not refusing to accept these facts, as you are usually quite rational and able to accept facts that do not agree with your point of view.

*The Democrats were able to get the "Bryd rule" waived on the Obamacare bill because they did have 60 Senate seats at that time.

Now show the point of order actually being raised by the Democrats. This is nice and all, but you've yet to provide the evidence I requested showing them doing that.

[Reality_Check]

My mistake (see I admit those, unlike certain other people :rolleyes:).

You've yet to admit you were wrong about President Obama not presenting a budget. So, let's not tear our rotator cuff patting ourselves on the back just yet.

[BJJ-Blue]

Now show the point of order actually being raised by the Democrats. This is nice and all, but you've yet to provide the evidence I requested showing them doing that.

I'm still looking, but so far it looks like it wasnt. And that was because the GOP went the reconciliation route because they didn't have the 60 votes required to avoid a filibuster. And they didn't have the 60 votes required to waive the "Byrd rule" so they didn't bother to try it. The fact that they only got 58 'yay' votes shows they could not have avoided it, as it would have been raised by any one of the 33 voting against it. It's common sense to assume someone who votes 'no' would use every means at their disposal to stop it, and that becomes even more obvious because they had to use reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. So it's illogical to say the Democrats would have filibustered it to stop it, but wouldn't have raised the "Byrd rule" option to stop it.

[Reality_Check]

I'm still looking, but so far it looks like it wasnt. And that was because the GOP went the reconciliation route because they didn't have the 60 votes required to avoid a filibuster. And they didn't have the 60 votes required to waive the "Byrd rule" so they didn't bother to try it. The fact that they only got 58 'yay' votes shows they could not have avoided it, as it would have been raised by any one of the 33 voting against it. It's common sense to assume someone who votes 'no' would use every means at their disposal to stop it, and that becomes even more obvious because they had to use reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. So it's illogical to say the Democrats would have filibustered it to stop it, but wouldn't have raised the "Byrd rule" option to stop it.

So, they "pre" compromised in order to get the best bill they felt they could get passed? Isn't that how our political system works?

[BJJ-Blue]

You've yet to admit you were wrong about President Obama not presenting a budget. So, let's not tear our rotator cuff patting ourselves on the back just yet.

They didn't PASS a budget, I used the wrong word. They didn't pass a budget before the 2010 elections because then the GOP would have had concrete proof about how bad the fiscal situation was. Since they didn't pass a budget, they could say the numbers the Republicans' were using on the campaign trail were off and there was no proof they weren't. Of course once a budget was passed, it was shown the GOP was correct.

And I do believe I admitted I was mistaken on that. And I'm not asking you to admit you are wrong about anything. I just was asking you why the Democrats did not make the Obama payroll tax cuts which helped the non-rich permanent tax cuts.

[BJJ-Blue]

So, they "pre" compromised in order to get the best bill they felt they could get passed? Isn't that how our political system works?

It is one way it works, correct.

But the cuts would have been permanent if the Democrats had agreed to not filibuster and/or use the "Byrd rule". Can you agree with this statement?

[Reality_Check]

They didn't PASS a budget, I used the wrong word. They didn't pass a budget before the 2010 elections because then the GOP would have had concrete proof about how bad the fiscal situation was. Since they didn't pass a budget, they could say the numbers the Republicans' were using on the campaign trail were off and there was no proof they weren't. Of course once a budget was passed, it was shown the GOP was correct.

And I do believe I admitted I was mistaken on that. And I'm not asking you to admit you are wrong about anything. I just was asking you why the Democrats did not make the tax cuts to the non-rich permanent tax cuts.

Actually you didn't.


It isnt. And you didn't post any budget the community organizer put forth. Do you know why you didn't? Because he never did, and he himself hasn't denied this[ Nor has he shown a propsal either.

Now he did comment on others proposals, as you posted above. But never did he roll out a proposal of his own.

Do you have a video or something of him rolling out a proposal? I know he wanted to increase taxes (he called it "revenue"). Since you're familiar with this supposed proposal, what taxes did he propose to raise in this alleged proposal?

And I noticed you can't refute the fact that for over 2 years the Democrat-conrolled Congress failed to even pass a budget as required by law. If they had such brilliant budget ideas, why didn't they enact them when they had huge majorities in Congress?


From February 2011:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Looks like a budget to me.


I was wrong about that, it appears. I do still maintain they did not pass a budget for FY 2011, as required by law to do.


Fiscal 2011 Budget: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html

Passage of the Fiscal 2011 Budget:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/09/usa-buget-deal-idUSWEN083620110409

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/10/republicans-2011-budget-deal-beginning-cuts-ahead/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/04/19/2011-budget-battle-only-the-first-of-many-to-come-

It was passed late, but it was passed.


I misunderstood which year to use. I'm no accountant. ;)

They did not pass a budget in 2010.

"House Democrats will not pass a budget blueprint in 2010, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) will confirm in a speech on Tuesday."

Source: (full article)
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104635-dems-wont-pass-budget?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d9e7b8c4e447d64%252C 0


Fiscal 2010 Budget: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

Passage of said budget: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123870974208284245.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/29/politics/main4977653.shtml

Your link refers to the FY 2011 Budget (October 2010 - September 2011), which was not in fact passed in 2010, it was passed in April 2011.


They went over a year without passing a budget and having it signed by the President. Which is against the law. Can we agree on this?


The President is required to present a budget, which he did. He can't force the Congress to vote on it. The Congress then puts together a budget resolution, which does not require a Presidential signature (though it must pass both chambers). Appropriation bills actually spend the budgeted money. Those require a Presidential signature. However, they are initiated in Congress, not by the President.

So, in the budget process, President Obama did everything he was required to do.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

Where in there did you admit you were wrong about President Obama presenting a budget?

[BJJ-Blue]

He presented a budget, I was incorrect.

But I do not believe they passed a budget in 2010, at least BEFORE the midterm elections. Am I incorrect there?

Can you now please answer the questions I've asked of you?