John Kyl (R-Ariz.) wants to add $678 billion to deficit for tax cuts for the rich

Republicans say adding $678 billion to deficit for tax cuts for the rich is OK, but adding $30 billion for unemployment benefits doesn't even deserve a vote.

Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.

In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.

"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.



www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.washingtonmonthly.com...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

"unpaid for tax cuts" *facepalm*

That is a great example of the thinking of our politicians. They are so addicted to spending that they they look at tax cuts as a spending program. They can't understand the concept of budget less for the next fiscal year.


On topic. I don't want to see any taxes raised until the Federal budget is balanced by spending cuts. More money for them is just more fuel on the fire.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by sporkmonster]

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


When you reduce taxes, particularly to succesful people, they use the money to invest in business, hire more employees and create wealth. The reagan tax cuts increased revenues to the IRS 100 percent in eight years. As it is, half of americans pay no taxes. I would have no problem with this if they didn't vote, but if you're going to vote, you should have some skin in the game. Otherwise, we wind up with Obama. Remember, socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip




Great thread. Let's see we need tax cuts for the rich but unemployment benefits for the poor is out of the question.


The Republicans are loosing whatever foot hold they had against the Democrats by playing angles like this. I am a conservative at heart but thing like this make me hate them. I know hate is a strong word but that is how I feel.


We need jobs and until the job market rebounds we need the safety net that unemployment is providing for millions of Americans. And please do remember this is not welfare you had to work to get this benefit.





Something is very wrong in this country and I wish these politicians living in their little bubbles would see it. How many times are Americans going to let them say----Let them eat cake?

reply to post by astrogolf
I checked the facts on this and it seems the general consensus is that these corporations simply pocket the money, with no real evidence that such tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs or investments.

reply to post by astrogolf


if that were true, then why have they shipped all the jobs over seas? why do we have upwards of a hundred people applying for one decent paying job. we have had tax cuts for the past 8years? where are the jobs? wages for workers have stagnated while ceo pay has gone through the roof. lot of old timers dream about the 50's. wasn't all great with the rascism and segregation and women as second class citizens as well. but the tax rate was way higher then and we had strong unions. we were an economic power house and a manufacturing giant then.

reply to post by star in a jar


Corporate tax and personal income tax are separate issues. When you see a company with ten trucks, one location and 20 employees, they loose jobs when personal income taxes go up. Here's why. Joe, the owner has to draw more from his company to pay taxes, therefore, he has to cut expenses, therefore, he cuts an employee or two. These folks are my clients. I know them well. Also, in an environment where success doesn't translate to income, but more taxes, Joe is less likely to bother with more investment in his company, and focus on saving the money he already has.
As to unemployment benefits, if you need it for more than two years......you ain't tryin'.

reply to post by blackthorne


This isn't the 50's anymore my friend. We no longer are the only country left with a manufacturing base after WW2.

It is 2010 and we live in a global economy where you can manufacture something on the other side of the world and ship it anywhere cost effectively.

We dont have jobs in this country, because we can no longer effectively compete. Our workforce demands too much pay and our government demands too much taxes and regulation. Adding a union on top of that pretty much insures the company will either move its production and any other jobs it can out of the country in order to survive.

reply to post by astrogolf


You are so off base you are in the outfield.

When you reduce taxes, particularly to succesful people, they use the money to invest in business, hire more employees and create wealth.

Total and complete crap. We gave that idea a try for like 30 years, and what did it prove? NO investment, NO job creation, ahhh, but they certainly created wealth, for just themselves.

Right now the top fortune 500 companies are collectively siting on about $1.8 trillion. They aren't investing, definitely not hiring, but again, they are creating wealth for themselves. Why, you ask, are they doing this? Because they don't like Obama, so screw America.

The reagan tax cuts increased revenues to the IRS 100 percent in eight years

Wrong again. Where did you hear that? Do more research. Here, I'll help you out you poor parrot.

"Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000."

here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - www.time.com...


IN fact acoording to Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1990 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 4-4.

While Reagan made $132.7 billion in tax increases, he also made $275.3 billion in tax cuts, thereby reducing IRS revenues by $142.6 billion.

As it is, half of americans pay no taxes.

Why is that? Are they tax evaders? Are they free riders? Are they do nothing losers? NO! They are POOR! So poor in fact that it wouldn't do any good to tax them. This was brought up the other day by another parrot. Look at it this way...
The top 1% of people own 33% of all the nation's money, while the bottom 50%(the ones that pay nothing in taxes) own a measly 2.5%.

Do you really believe that taxing the bottom 50% on their 2.5% of the wealth is the answer to any problem? Do the math, and be honest with at least yourself.

I would have no problem with this if they didn't vote, but if you're going to vote, you should have some skin in the game.

You must be one of those people that yells about adhering to the Constitution. They are always the first to complain about what's in it. And last I checked, a private first class in our armed forces is one of those poor that pay no taxes. I believe there are a few that "have some skin in the game" Would you suggest they don't deserve to vote?.

Remember, socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

Remember, capitalism is great until one guy owns all the money.

edit to add - Suck on it

[edit on 12-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

 

When you reduce taxes, particularly to succesful people, they use the money to invest in business, hire more employees and create wealth. The reagan tax cuts increased revenues to the IRS 100 percent in eight years. As it is, half of americans pay no taxes. I would have no problem with this if they didn't vote, but if you're going to vote, you should have some skin in the game. Otherwise, we wind up with Obama. Remember, socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

That's the same old, tired lie they keep getting people to buy.

Ill admit at one point when jobs were actually being created, and businesses were actually being given loans this argument may have held an ounce of water.

But now?

Jobs have been shed for almost a straight decade. The rich no longer invest in anything at a level low enough to help the average man and woman. They just grow corporate revenues dividends and hedges of phony assets that they hoard more an more. Eventually well have a 3rd world fascist dictatorship where everyone livea in squalor except multimillionaresn and up, and you would seem to defend it.

We give banks bailouts in two straight administrations and you're apparently stuck on this argument.

Yes Republicans are evil and so are Democrats.

But denying people necessities so the rich can have they're "investment" money is not a human stance. The elite would have mass genocide if they could and its this type of divisive neo-capitalist, facist reasoning that lets billions die in agony and sees nothing wrong with profit at all costs, that allows them to reap the genocidal fruit they spread.

Society would advance 10 times faster at least in a system where everyone would have basic human rights up to a certain standard. Anyone who can't see this is extremely brainwashed.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by ISHAMAGI]

may not be the 50's. how ever, what is wrong with the idea that those who actually break their back on the assembly line demand a living wage? jobs over seas = lower costs, yes. but what happens when the consumers no longer have well paying jobs to afford the goods? the wealth has been transferred from those who make it tp to those who do not wish to pay for the work.

reply to post by astrogolf


What a load. The rich use tax cuts to get richer.
Talk about gullible.
And why did Reagan end up raising taxes then?
And Bush1?
Please

It is inappropriate to say that tax cuts will add anything to the deficit.

Spending money that you do not have adds to the deficit.

If you were sick from work for two days and did not get paid you would only be adding to your credit card debt is you used your credit cards.

The phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch" comes to mind.

There are so many things wrong with saying that not taking someone else's money from them will add to your debt I can't even begin to list them all here.

John Kyl actually wants people to keep $678 billion of THEIR money in their pockets. Where it actually does the most good.

Want to reduce the deficit? Cut current spending. Too simple.

Think higher taxes don't influence people? Just look at Lebron James. He chose a team who resides in a no income tax state. Also look at Rush Limbaugh, he just sold his apartment in New York for $13 million cutting all ties with state. Imagine how much revenue New York lost because of their high taxes.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by blackthorne

 

This isn't the 50's anymore my friend. We no longer are the only country left with a manufacturing base after WW2.

It is 2010 and we live in a global economy where you can manufacture something on the other side of the world and ship it anywhere cost effectively.

We dont have jobs in this country, because we can no longer effectively compete. Our workforce demands too much pay and our government demands too much taxes and regulation. Adding a union on top of that pretty much insures the company will either move its production and any other jobs it can out of the country in order to survive.

Nonsense. How does the average worker compete with pennies paid overseas? He still has to pay 'North American'. When you see jobs leave Mexico because labour is too expensive, you've gotta figure something is screwed.

The fact is that jobs go to the third world, yet you don't see local prices go down proportionally to reflect that state. Why? The difference is sucked up by Wall Street.

If the jobs didn't go global, we wouldn't be in the fix. And unions? Those folks that gave us the weekend? They raise the bar for everybody. What's the price of labour in a North American built car? 10%?

Shame on you for putting the blame on your neighbour instead of the greedy bastards that created this monster!

Yet another example of republican's listing problems without offering solutions, even when the solution is in their face.

My suggestion to all of you; find out where your representative's live and then find out how much their home is worth and then find out your districts median income.

Mine:
Median income for the district: $45,235
Representative's home price: $327,400

Jon Kyl only has his mailing address listed but the median income for Arizona is $47,750.

Originally posted by astrogolf
When you reduce taxes, particularly to successful people, they use the money to invest in business, hire more employees and create wealth.

that is a misconception
that ideology became extinct
round the start of this millenia.

No, they're gonna risk it in the stock market
in hopes of making big bucks and screw
the lil guy. No jobs, no product, no business.
These middle-rich people have become Wall Street
junkies with their $5 e-trades and risking
all on reports feed to them from folks
like Goldman Sachs. They invest and lose.
Now, the money's gone and still no jobs,
no business and no product. They are just
funneling the money upward, not downward.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by blackthorne

 

This isn't the 50's anymore my friend. We no longer are the only country left with a manufacturing base after WW2.

It is 2010 and we live in a global economy where you can manufacture something on the other side of the world and ship it anywhere cost effectively.

We dont have jobs in this country, because we can no longer effectively compete. Our workforce demands too much pay and our government demands too much taxes and regulation. Adding a union on top of that pretty much insures the company will either move its production and any other jobs it can out of the country in order to survive.

In protecting/promoting your idealism and ideology you are missing something

Chinese minimum wage is about $140.00 a month...

Get rid of taxes and unions... next do you propose paying Americans $7.00 a day so that we can compete?


Hot damn man, thats sounds like a recipe for success

Let say we can compete if we pay Americans $10.00 a day, or $20.00, is you solution
coupled with cannibalism? I agree this disparity is a fine place to read from the book of Rand, I enjoy reading it aloud at car wrecks myself, but you diagnosis and implied solution are akin to crapping on a bullet wound to prevent blood poisoning, at best applying a bandage.

By my simple calculation this ideological 1st commandment does not remedy the actual problem in the equation, in fact such a remedy would create a worse problem.

"For a FREER AMERICA we MUST apply Chinese practices and base line standards to the American Business model!!!"

God man, its just so bad

I am going to enter my head into direct competition with traffic,,, christ I am drooling
now... WTF

Can anybody who is not a comedian tell me, considering the present circumstance, what natural forces will allow the American manufacturing base compete with $.90 an hour???

Is this notion not the same as proposing third world pay for Americans, in order to conserve our "prosperity", so that we do not become a third world nation?

Literally, I had to go to the kitchen, get a cup and place it under my chin



[edit on 13-7-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

 

When you reduce taxes, particularly to succesful people, they use the money to invest in business, hire more employees and create wealth. The reagan tax cuts increased revenues to the IRS 100 percent in eight years. As it is, half of americans pay no taxes.

No. No. No.

Seriously? Trickle Down Economics???? Reaganomics?

Give the wealthiest Americans more money and...the wealthiest Americans have more money. At most they will buy a third home or a 3rd mercedes.

Give the middle and lower class more money and they buy many things, create demand, create jobs.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by maybereal11]