It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – House Democrats voted Thursday to reject President Barack Obama's tax deal with Republicans in its current form, but it was unclear how significantly the package might need to be changed.

By voice vote in a closed caucus meeting, Democrats passed a resolution saying the tax package should not come to the House floor for consideration as written, even though no formal House bill has been drafted. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced the resolution.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Now the democrats have B@ll$? They had two years to pass the middle class tax cuts and leave out the cuts for the Rich, and did nothing. Now, that they have been wiped out in the House they are going to take a stand?

This is ridiculous. Sure, the Republicans are wrong for holding the Country hostage to make sure their rich buddies get to keep more of their millions, but if this bill doesn't get passed, 7 million people will be cut off from unemployment and the rest of us who are working will have less money to live on!!!

Washington is a mess, and I wish Wikileaks would release something that would completely wipe out this government so We the People could start over.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
These people in Washington need to get over themselves. A deal was made the other day and now the Dems want to block it.

I say when a deal has been made, you need to go ahead with it. The Democrats, as usual, will blame the Republicans if an extension of unemployment benefits fails. The bad thing about it is the American people will eat it up.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The problem is that neither the Republicraps and Democraps wants to take away the tax brakes from the rich in the nation.

The present bill wants to take brakes for those 250 thousand and up, plus each member of congress have their own pork to add after elections.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
At first glance I'm all about this because the tax plan in it's current form will only serve to gang rape our economy even further and encourage the retarded financial corruption among our top 1% that's been prevalent since Cokehead George first attained the office. Although I'm extremely skeptical about all this and I think we're going to get screwed regardless because that's how our government works, I'm cautiously optimistic. This plan has also shown that Obama is a spineless coward and needs to GTFO of office in 2012.
edit on 9-12-2010 by Joehio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem is that neither the Republicraps and Democraps wants to take away the tax brakes from the rich in the nation.

The present bill wants to take brakes for those 250 thousand and up, plus each member of congress have their own pork to add after elections.


It’s a tax extension not a tax break. No one is getting a brake. The bill is to keep taxes the same next year as they are now. There is no breaks folks. and if not past i will see $250 less a month in my check and im middle america. i cant afford that type of tax hike
edit on 9-12-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


You are right, but is not a brake, a breake will be if the tax for the rich is increased and you will have an additional brake.

But the tax passed under the Bush administration was more in favor of the rich no the working class.

My husband and I pay 25 thousand dollars in taxes along a year no including other additional taxes and I don't even work. But since our children are adults we are taxed to the max.

I can tell you that the Bush tax breakes affected the middle working class more than the poor working one and the rich.

Is always that income braked that got hit with paying everything.

We are not rich and we don't make 250 thousand dollars a year, we have never seen a tax brake.

edit on 9-12-2010 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Well its December the 9th the house swings over to the republican majority team on Jan 3rd, ( I think).Yeah my car has "BRAKES"; If somebody cuts you a deal you get a "break".If you work 4 hours lawssays:"you get a 15 minute break from it".

It doesn't cost the govt to "give a a tax break; Its not theirs or "yours" to keep in the first place.But if you dems want to continue pushing the "woe is me" Jealousy based class war.
edit on 9-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Remove all elected politicians as the Declaration of Independence describes. Remove all social programs, they are unconstitutional, and give power back to the people. Obviously Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution has been overlooked by the upper echelons of power.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The economic ignorance here is appalling. I expect it among the government educated masses, but to see it here is disheartening. First of all the desire to soak the rich is immoral and basic class envy, promulgated by the communists and socialists who control the thought processes via media and education.

Second, historically tax cuts have tended to stimulate the economy resulting in INCREASED government revenue. That's right folks read it again. Tax cuts can INCREASE government revenue. Both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts caused the US government to take in more revenue due to increased economic activity. Look up the Laffer curve for the economic theory behind it.

Guess what happened when they increased capital gains taxes in order to punish the successful "rich" folks? Tax revenue decreased. Folks pulled their assets overseas and reduced investment here. This may come as a shock to you hopeless liberals, but we want people to get rich in America. That's right, it's good when people get rich, because they invest in local businesses and create jobs.

By the way the capital gains tax increase "anomaly" was explained to a campaigning Obama. What was his response? He didn't care if it reduced government income, he just wanted to make the rich suffer! That's the marxist mentality that destroys nations. That's the thinking that caused the socialists in Argentina to seize everyone's savings, a proposal that the psychotic democrats have been entertaining here in the US. How'd that turn out for Argentina? They went from one the worlds most prosperous nations to a banana republic. Unfortunately we have a critical mass of leftist stupidity here, that has probably doomed our nation and will eventually result in it's destruction.

By the way the proposed tax bill is not about reducing taxes at all. It will simply keep them the same. Without it we will see a HUGE tax increase that will further erode and destroy our economy. But that was the plan all along wasn't it?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Yeah because the last several year with Bush's tax cuts have been absolutely cracker jack for the economy.
What's amazing is you were able to work religion and "DA LIBERALZZZ CONSPIRACYYYY111!!!" in your nonsense.

We need to go back to the Clinton era plan which stimulated our economy, influenced a raging economy and created a surplus.
edit on 9-12-2010 by Joehio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joehio
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Yeah because the last several year with Bush's tax cuts have been absolutely cracker jack for the economy.
What's amazing is you were able to work religion and "DA LIBERALZZZ CONSPIRACYYYY111!!!" in your nonsense.

We need to go back to the Clinton era plan which stimulated our economy, influenced a raging economy and created a surplus.
edit on 9-12-2010 by Joehio because: (no reason given)


the several years the bush taxs cuts were in the economy it was booming. Look at 07-08. that was at historic highs. then we crashed.

lets say taxing the rich is the right thing to do. ok then where dose that money go now. into the goverment. then the goverment spends it as it sees fit. so what happend when the goverment had its last spending spree? nothing. they P***** it away.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Sorry to tell you this but the Bush tax breaks help the economy from the coming downfall until it could not hold any longer.

The stimulus along with the breaks still have no done a darn thing post economic meltdown.

Yes is shame how the Obama administration wants to punish the those that are just in the 250 thousand to 400 thousand loop, still the filthy rich will always find holes to get away from the maximum taxation.

Right now is not amount of money that is going to give back jobs to the ones that has lost theirs and is not going to be enough money to make people spending again the way they used too.

Stimulus are only helping corporate America and tax breaks are not working.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The booming during the bush years were a lie, a fake to boost the approval of two trillion dollar war, the economy was propped by manipulated interest rates and over spending.

That is why the economy collapsed.

The bubble is growing again this time fed by the Federal Reserve, to keep the markets and the banking alive.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I think what many people are forgetting to realize, no matter the tax cuts, no matter whom was in office, we as a society were living in a false economy to begin with. No matter what the USG did, the bottom had to fall out from under us. Yes we can point the fingers at USG, ( i for one would be at the front of that line ), but ultimately, though I know most of us don't want to admit it, we as the voting public are responsible for allowing this atrocity to occur.
We voted in these ya hoo's...so in the end we only have ourselves to blame, for not standing up to what the Declaration of Independence states as well as the Constitution. Had we all been more informed in regards to Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, maybe our voice as a combined effort would have been heard?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Wow, liberals are so idealogically locked down they refuse to accept basic economic truths. Take this on and throw off your mental straightjackets:

online.wsj.com...

These folks studied tax policy over the last 20 years and found.... SURPRISE!
Reducing deficits and reducing taxes create economic growth! Shocking isn't it?

The "Clinton" prosperity was opposed by the Clinton administration from the beginning but there was a republican congress then (or had you forgotten that). Thus they reduced taxes following the Reagan economic model and for the first time we were running budget surpluses.

By the way what happened when the liberal god, John Kennedy, lowered taxes? Answer:
We entered a period of economic prosperity that increased government revenues. I suppose though that those tax cuts were gooooood tax cuts. Democratic tax cuts = goooood, republican tax cuts = baaaaad, I hear the brainwashed sheeple bray.

Obama is proposing to extend the Bush tax 'cuts'. That makes it good then right? What if I drop the keyword "Bush" from the plan, does that make it better? Actually we should call it, the Obama tax not as much plan, since no actual cuts are proposed. Maybe we could call it the ScrewUless plan?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by SevenThunders
 




Yes is shame how the Obama administration wants to punish the those that are just in the 250 thousand to 400 thousand loop, still the filthy rich will always find holes to get away from the maximum taxation.




You do realize that the tax brackets didn't change? So they did in fact pay the required amount per the tax bracket code.

source: www.moneychimp.com...
source: www.bankrate.com...

These sources will give you an idea how just how much the top 2% of the richest pay annually.
They pay over 35% alone, of the nationally grossed tax collected, which is far more than you are I contribute annually.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Well its December the 9th the house swings over to the republican majority team on Jan 3rd, ( I think).Yeah my car has "BRAKES"; If somebody cuts you a deal you get a "break".If you work 4 hours lawssays:"you get a 15 minute break from it".
.
edit on 9-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

That is not federal law, I worked for 8 + hours and had no breaks at all, in Florida breaks are only given at the companies discretion. LOL, oddly enough the only company who does this of their own volition is Wal-Mart

I know shocking huh...yeah thats what we get in a state that has vowed to keep out the unions. what a crock
OK I am done derailing this thread, sorry...

Well since I am unemployed and can't get unemployment it really doesn't affect me, I will just stay unemployed and let them not get a blessed red cent from me. O yeah I may lose this home, I really don't give a well you know, I can live fine I can survive and better it starts now, becasue when TSHTF I don't want to have a home anyway I'll be safer from the home invasions then anyway.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Sorry to hear about your plight . I have many friends like you. I went through a 6 month unemployment period myself, and my job security currently is non-existent. How did this happen?

It will continue to get worse if we vote for liberals, socialists and globalists. All jobs and production will flow to the most repressive regimes with the worst human rights records. Is this what we wanted when folks voted lib? Is it surprising that the democratic party represents corporate monopolies and the oligarchy rather than the little man? Not to me, I've watched their machinations for many years. When the LBJ wing of the democratic party took over the republican party via the Bush administration I knew we were in for a world of hurt.

The solution is to never vote for a globalist or bankster shill ever again. That immediately rules out the entire democratic party. The few in that party that weren't slaves to the oligarchs have been run out or jailed. It also rules out about 75% of the republican party. The few that are left are in the mold of Ron Paul, his son and a few other Tea party die hards.

The worst thing you can do is to decide to vote D, because they are promising you more handouts. That is the disaster that made banana republics of nations all over the southern hemisphere. That is a guarantee of dependencies and no jobs for all the foreseeable future.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


You can insult anyway you can but the reality of the economic situation is that we got tax cuts with no easing the spending.

So the idea that tax cuts and control deficit makes prosperity is still debatable.

So far Bush tax cuts has been match with over spending.

And no matter who goes into government the republirats or the democraps spending is the only way to keep the markets going until the next bubble burst.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join