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.

 

GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Well, to be clear, neither Boehner nor McConnell have taken a stance on this yet, so the title is misleading.

Also, the Democrats are not Immune (as if that were any surprise):


Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and stature.




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


True...some dems are concerened that the extension of the tax break may harm SS as a whole because of reduced revenue for the program. However, I don't see this as a contradiction in their stance...they would like to do both, but realize that doing one may harm the other.

On the other hand, Republicans continually talk about how they will never raise taxes and that raising taxes now on "anyone" (read: rich people) is a bad idea. But this just shows that when they say "anyone"...it truly does mean just the rich...not the working class.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



reply to post by mishigas


True...some dems are concerened that the extension of the tax break may harm SS as a whole because of reduced revenue for the program. However, I don't see this as a contradiction in their stance...they would like to do both, but realize that doing one may harm the other.

On the other hand, Republicans continually talk about how they will never raise taxes and that raising taxes now on "anyone" (read: rich people) is a bad idea. But this just shows that when they say "anyone"...it truly does mean just the rich...not the working class.


I agree, and actually side with the Dems...how can we justify cuts in funding for SS regardless of where they come from. I also do not understand the justification of a cap on deductions based upon income -- that is prejudiced toward lower incomes.

And finally, the Rep's stance is very puzzling to me.

But then again, this is politics, where nothing is logical.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Republicans are only against taxes for the wealthy.
Democrats are pandering pansies.


They are all controlled by the Corpocracy.


Tea Partiers will do whatever fox news tells them to.
edit on 22-8-2011 by pirhanna because: addendum



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Remember this............




How'ed that work out for ya George?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Well, that's what happens when a Rep prez works with a Dem controlled Congress, eh? Even Reagan got fooled by the lying Dems, who promised spending cuts in return for taxes.

And technically, there were no NEW taxes in the budget compromise.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by whaaa
 


Well, that's what happens when a Rep prez works with a Dem controlled Congress, eh? Even Reagan got fooled by the lying Dems, who promised spending cuts in return for taxes.

And technically, there were no NEW taxes in the budget compromise.


I gave you a little blue star for even having the guts to defend papa Bush even after most of the GOP has thrown him under the bus and trying to distance themselves from the neocons as far as they can.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Ideally both the Bush tax cuts and this payroll tax reduction should be terminated immediately. Those who make the argument “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem” are the types of people you cannot take seriously when our revenue has plummeted because, 1) Bush tax cuts, and 2) recession. The more tax revenue we can collect to help reduce our yearly deficits the better, in my opinion. And by my interpretation of “shared sacrifice” it means everyone takes a hit, not “well we can raise the tax on everyone under $106,000 income but if you touch $250,000+ we will have an uprising”.

What happened to the Grover Norquist “No Tax Increase” pledge? Or does that just not apply to tax increases on anyone below the $250k bracket?

It is increasingly difficult to rationalize what these Republicans are thinking. One cited low taxes as helping to increase our deficit, which they claim to be against, but then they fought tooth-and-nail for the biggest destroyer of revenue in a generation. If they think tax increases are absolutely essential to battle the deficit, just say it, Americans will not throw you out for being honest. But they damn sure will not have any reservations throwing you out for being hypocritical liars with a careless favoritism towards the rich.

I don't know,Obama is doing OK.

Second line



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

And now Obama wants to extend that for at least one year...there is only one little problem....REPUBLICANS. They don't want you to have that extra cash...they want to raise your SS tax up 2%...they want to stick it to the group of people that need this extra cash the most.


I posted this on another thread about this, but it fits here:

When Obama lowered the FICA contribution by 2%, he put a little bit of cash in every wage earner's pockets. That's a positive thing, right? Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Social Security was sold and designed as sort of a savings account, or insurance (thus the "contribution" and "benefit" terms associated with it, even though it's nothing more than a tax). So, in effect, when he lowered the "contribution" amount he robbed the piggy bank and circumvented the whole reason behind it. You can't have a savings if you pull money out of it.

It's almost certain that even if anyone noticed that their paycheck was slightly bulkier, they probably didn't put it together that the 2% they just gained (and spent), is 2% they won't have when they turn 62. And it's even more unlikely that any significant amount of people took that extra 2% and put it aside for savings or, heaven forbid, invested it.

The way I've heard it from the Progressives is that grandma absolutely [can't live without even one dime being taken from her SS check. And yet our Lord and Savior Obama took 2%. Interesting, isn't it, that now that the GOP wants to restore that 2%, they get kicked in the teeth and called evil, greedy elitists by the very same people that that throw a hissy any time someone even hints at SS reform?

/TOA



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Eliminate the cap of 106k. Anything anyone makes over that currently isn't taxed...which is BS. Change it, and SS is in good shape.

That's why the "we are for fiscal responsibility" is a bull coming from the GOP.

In the one instance we know of, they are willing to increase taxes...but wait...that's not actually true either.

Republicans were willing to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. They would not agree to keeping the middle class cuts only...the wealthy had to keep it as well or everyone's taxes went up.

Obama didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class so he caved.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join