Apparantly the major item of the congress after their vacation will be to take up the Bush tax cuts and decide whether to extend some, all or none of them. I have heard that one of the Dems talking points is going to be that if the Republicans block any action of the extension then ALL tax payers will see an income tax increase starting Jan. 1.

 

But how can this possibly be? When the tax cuts were being debated the Dems maintained that only the rich would get any benefit from them Yet now that they are set to expire (on their watch) everyone will suffer if those mean spirited Republicans allow the expiration (that the democrats insisted on in the first place) happen.

 

And certainly if the reduction of income tax was so small for J Q Public to even notice them then surely allowing those cuts to expire would result in an increase so small there would be no electoral fallout from it, correct?

Apparantly the major item of the congress after their vacation will be to take up the Bush tax cuts and decide whether to extend some, all or none of them. I have heard that one of the Dems talking points is going to be that if the Republicans block any action of the extension then ALL tax payers will see an income tax increase starting Jan. 1.

 

But how can this possibly be? When the tax cuts were being debated the Dems maintained that only the rich would get any benefit from them Yet now that they are set to expire (on their watch) everyone will suffer if those mean spirited Republicans allow the expiration (that the democrats insisted on in the first place) happen.

 

And certainly if the reduction of income tax was so small for J Q Public to even notice them then surely allowing those cuts to expire would result in an increase so small there would be no electoral fallout from it, correct?

I do not currently speak that language. The sound you hear right now are crickets chirping.:lol: Don't expect an explanation from the Dems anytime soon.

Apparantly the major item of the congress after their vacation will be to take up the Bush tax cuts and decide whether to extend some, all or none of them. I have heard that one of the Dems talking points is going to be that if the Republicans block any action of the extension then ALL tax payers will see an income tax increase starting Jan. 1.

 

But how can this possibly be? When the tax cuts were being debated the Dems maintained that only the rich would get any benefit from them Yet now that they are set to expire (on their watch) everyone will suffer if those mean spirited Republicans allow the expiration (that the democrats insisted on in the first place) happen.

 

And certainly if the reduction of income tax was so small for J Q Public to even notice them then surely allowing those cuts to expire would result in an increase so small there would be no electoral fallout from it, correct?

 

I don't know about all Dems but Obama certainly campaigned on allowing the tax cuts to expire for those making over $250k while retaining them for the middle class.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to extend them for the 95 percent of taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year; Republicans want to extend them for everybody. How will these extensions affect the deficit? Glad you asked. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, "the Democratic proposal would add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the next decade, while the GOP plan would cost $3.7 trillion." That brings the total Obama deficit to $3.784 trillion over 10 years, and its GOP counterpart to—drumroll, please—$4.155 trillion. That's right. Even if we assume that the Republicans would've spent $0 to stimulate the economy in the wake of the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression—an unlikely scenario, given the very real risks of inaction—their proposed policies would still produce a deficit $371 billion larger than President Obama's.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/26/on-jobs-and-deficits-republicans-are-worse-than-obama.html

But didn't the Dems say that the Bush Tax Cuts would only benefit the rich? If that's the case them why not just let them expire?

It wasn't that the tax cuts ONLY benefitted the rich, the objection was that they were more heavily weighted towards the rich.

It wasn't that the tax cuts ONLY benefitted the rich, the objection was that they were more heavily weighted towards the rich.

 

Which of course was wrong.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to extend them for the 95 percent of taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year; Republicans want to extend them for everybody. How will these extensions affect the deficit? Glad you asked. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, "the Democratic proposal would add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the next decade, while the GOP plan would cost $3.7 trillion." That brings the total Obama deficit to $3.784 trillion over 10 years, and its GOP counterpart to—drumroll, please—$4.155 trillion. That's right. Even if we assume that the Republicans would've spent $0 to stimulate the economy in the wake of the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression—an unlikely scenario, given the very real risks of inaction—their proposed policies would still produce a deficit $371 billion larger than President Obama's.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/26/on-jobs-and-deficits-republicans-are-worse-than-obama.html

I would certainly hesitate to put much faith in an article that doesn't cite it's sources. Newsweek appears to be starting to panic as it's favorite son and his cronies are falling in the polls. That article should be listed in the records as a donation to the Dems.

Hmm..We let the tax breaks expire on all over $250,000. I assume that would include small business,medium business,large business,etc. Let's call that tax increase X. Businesses then increase prices on goods by X in order to maintain profit margin. Since everyone (even those under $250,000) buys the goods,then who is actually paying the tax?

It wasn't that the tax cuts ONLY benefitted the rich, the objection was that they were more heavily weighted towards the rich.

 

This is not what the Dems were saying. I distinctly remember some (even some on here) saying that only the rich would get ANY benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts. If that's the case then why not just let all of them expire?

This is not what the Dems were saying. I distinctly remember some (even some on here) saying that only the rich would get ANY benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts. If that's the case then why not just let all of them expire?

 

Are you missing the exponential growth of income and wealth as compared to the lower/middle class during the Bush administration? It is at all time highs.

Are you missing the growth of the percentage of Americans living in poverty? It's at an all time high?

 

And you're still not answering the question I put forth. If the Bush Tax Cuts did nothing for anyone but the "rich" then why not just let them all expire? After all it was the Dems who insisted on an expiration dateto get them passed in the first place.

I would certainly hesitate to put much faith in an article that doesn't cite it's sources. Newsweek appears to be starting to panic as it's favorite son and his cronies are falling in the polls. That article should be listed in the records as a donation to the Dems.

With all due respect, this article does cite sources. If you go to the link

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/26/on-jobs-and-deficits-republicans-are-worse-than-obama.html

all words in red will allow you to go to the source.

Are you missing the growth of the percentage of Americans living in poverty? It's at an all time high?

 

And you're still not answering the question I put forth. If the Bush Tax Cuts did nothing for anyone but the "rich" then why not just let them all expire? After all it was the Dems who insisted on an expiration dateto get them passed in the first place.

 

With about one in three Americans, including a minority of independents and Democrats, in favor of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans -- the Democrats' most likely proposal -- is the specific option the public prefers most. Gallup has typically found Americans unsympathetic to the argument that upper-income Americans are overtaxed. They generally believe upper-income Americans pay too little in taxes and favor higher taxes on wealthy Americans as a means to fund government programs, such as Social Security.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/Americans-Allowing-Tax-Cuts-Wealthy-Expire.aspx

 

Raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, as President Barack Obama proposes to do, probably wouldn't wreck the moribund U.S. economy, but extending the tax cuts they've enjoyed since 2001 could spur some economic benefit. A healthy dose of "it depends" is needed when assessing the economic merits of whether to collect more taxes from the rich. He'd let the tax rate rise for single taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $200,000 and couples over $250,000. The higher rate would apply only to their earnings over those thresholds. Republicans warn of disaster if all the tax reductions aren't extended. Some Democrats in Congress appear increasingly wary of the administration's approach, especially with prominent economists calling for a two-year extension for all the tax cuts, because they say the economy's too weak to raise taxes on anyone yet.

I heard Mitch McConnell say in a sound bite that letting the cuts expire for the top earners will stop them from creating new jobs, etc. (sic)

 

My question to Mitchy is....why haven't they been creating them throughout the time they've had the cuts?