Boehner/House Repubs Oppose Extending Tax Cuts for Middle Class

the dems aren't proposing this either.
Are you under the delusion that half the guys in washington actually "care" about you ?

 

exactly !!

 

If the middle class tax cuts are the price for getting the rich to pay their fair share, so be it. It's better than nothing. Someone has to start paying...

 

No, no, you are not playing the game correctly. You must pick a side and fight to the death, we are not interested in solutions.

 

the rich will not be hurt like the middle class would be, the rich already pay less then the middle class as Romney proved, republicans are once again taking America hostage it seems

 

So why was Obamacare not a progressive tax and ended up being the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class? Hmmm? Why is corporate America allowed to set that tax rate? Hmmm?

Let me guess, it's because of the GOP?

 

Naturally Obama voters don't care if we raise taxes or not because most of them don't make enough to pay taxes.

In their world government pays them, not the other way around.

 

Truman didn't have a problem with providing welfare assistance to those in need as the economy grew.

Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report.
January 14, 1953

But as our power to produce increases, our standards and goals rightly increase also. The job ahead of us remains large. About one-fourth of our nonfarm dwelling units and a much higher percentage of our farm housing are substandard. Many families still suffer from malnutrition. The amounts spent in recent years for schools and hospitals have been far less, as a percent of total national production, than was spent in 1939. Living conditions in large sections of our cities are distressing, calling for vast slum clearance and redevelopment effort.


Despite much progress in social security since the real beginning of the program in 1935, important gaps remain. Farmers are not covered by old-age insurance. Some 5 million wage and salary workers are still outside the unemployment insurance program. Welfare assistance is not adequate to meet the requirements of many disabled people, uninsured old people, and their dependents. About half of our families find difficulty in meeting the cost of essential medical care.


Standards of adequacy change with the times. What is enough in a 250-billion-dollar economy is not enough in a 350-billion-dollar economy, and will be still less than enough in a 400- or 500-billion-dollar economy. For example, old-age insurance has not only been insufficiently adjusted for changes in the price level; it has not been brought into line with the fact that the economy of today and tomorrow can afford a higher standard of living among the old than the economy of yesterday. In our long-range programs, we should provide for growth as the whole economy grows. This will have economic as well as social benefits. For if the millions of our people who are beyond working age should be unable to join in the demand for more and better products, the total market would not be adequate to support our expanding productive power. What we do in these fields should not be regarded as measures necessary to save a weak economy from disaster. Instead, we should scale these efforts to what a strong and expanding economy can and should accomplish.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14390&st=welfare+assistance&st1=

 

ObamaCare had a public option, not the conservatives individual mandate... what we got was Congress care, so lets continue to improve upon what we got, not throw the baby out with the bath water

 

And in Obama's economy, the numbers keep growing!!!

 

But the democrats are responsible for it, are they not? They just gave corporate America another stimulus and allowed them to set tax rates of the middle class and increased middle class taxes far above what any Republican ever did, but all I hear out of your mouth is how the GOP cares nothing about the middle class?

Grow up sonny. It's going to get tougher everyday on this sight being a *******.

 

My proposal to end the largest single tax loophole to increase federal revenues is something that Repubiicans, such as John Boenher and Mitch McConnell give a lot of lip service to and it would actually lower the income tax rates for everyone.

Do Republicans oppose lowering all income tax rates by 5% so that the top income tax rate goes from 35% to 33.25%?

Can Republicans support a tax loophole that creates a situation where a small business owner earning $100,000 in net income pays over $32,000 in taxes while someone else that also has a net income only pays $15,000? Small business owners actually create 80% of the jobs in America but investors that earn income from the stock market, commodity market, and money market rarely create any jobs so why does the small business owner pay over double the taxes?

Ending the Capital Gains tax loophole that treats investment income different than earned income does not require the wealthy to pay a higher tax rate than others in America but it does require them to pay the same tax rates as others in America.

I'm actually a Libertarina that supports major cuts to government spending and advocate cutting $200 billion from the DOD budget with a matching $200 billion cut to all other discretionary spending but I'm not stupid. We also need to increase revenues and income is income and all income should be treated the same. So long as we have an income tax system then income is income and all income must be subjected to the same tax rates. The wealthy should not have a special tax rated designed to so that they pay less than half the tax rate of small business owners and working Americans with the same income.

I'd like to hear any valid argument from a Republican why a small business owner should be taxed at twice the rate of a stock market investor where both have a net income of $100,000, $250,000 or a million dollars a year. The business owner creates jobs but purchasing stock on the NYSE doesn't create any jobs because it's just a change in ownership of the corporation and the corporation doesn't receive one dime of that money.

 

Lets all take a moment and thank House Republicans, Senate Republicans, and a Republican President for cutting taxes for da poor and middle class.....
.
.

 

conservative exist on both sides of the house, that is why we got congress care and not ObamaCare

conservatives did not want a public option sadly so we got what we could get, if democrats get full control in 2014, we can revisit it as I doubt this congress will

and now republicans are saying they plan to end the middle classes tax cuts, yep, that will hurt them come 2014

.


.

 

republicans sure don't think the middle class needs tax cuts... they said so

dems want tax cuts for the middle class

all one has to do is look at which party is wanting tax cuts for who, pretty simple really


.

 

Not being an Obama supporter I actually endorse what John Boenher and Mitch McConnell propose and that is lowering all of the income tax rates while also closing the single largest tax loophole in our tax system to increase federal revenues. The single largest tax loophole is the Capital Gains tax which taxes income at less than 1/2 the tax rate that a small business owner pays and small businesses provide about 80% of the jobs in America. Capital investments, that are taxed under the Capital Gains tax loophole at only 15%, create virtually no jobs because overwhelmingly they relate to simple changes in ownership of a corporation and not funding corporations.

I have pointed this out repeatedly. Why should a small business owner that actually creates jobs be taxed at twice the tax rate of stockholder that doesn't create any jobs? The only capital investments that create any jobs are related to IPO's by corporations and those only represent a very small percentage of investments shielded under the Capital Gains tax loophole and large corporations only provide 20% of all jobs in America. Commodity market, money market and stock market investments (unrelated to IPO's) have never created any real jobs in America.

All income is income and all income should be taxed under the identical progressive tax rates. I should not be paying a 33% higher tax rate than someone like Mitt Romney when I earn 1/100th as much. That is absurd and no one can rationalize that. Mitt Romney and Bain Capital never "created" a single American job with their corporate take-overs because they never invested a single dime to capitalize the enterprise. In fact, to increase the "bottom line" of the corporation so they could make a profit on the sale of the corporation it often requred layoffs and outsourcing of work to foreign countries.

 

Agreed, the national debt keeps growing, the deficit spending keeps growing, those on welfare keeps growing, the cost of healthcare keeps growing. I don't know why you would celebrate that...

 

The fundamental problem is that all of these would have continued under Romney as well as neither Obama or Romney were actually addressing these issues.

Welfare needs to be reduced but that can only be accomplished by reducing the need for assistance.
The deficits can only be eliminated by increasing revenues and by reducing spending. Both are required but Republicans and Democrats continue to eqaully support deficit spending.
There was virtually no difference between Obama and Romney on a federal health care program or in addressing health care costs.

 

You will never reduce the need for assistance by rewarding the behavior that causes the need for assistance. That is, if a person can have their living expenses paid for with little or no effort, then you will continue to see little or no effort given. Why? Because applying yourself is difficult. It is difficult to wake up early and go work hard all day long. Wouldn't you rather hang out with friends or watch tv, and just do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like? But Obama's policies are to give more handouts to those who don't work, which ensures the need for assistance will continue.

This is obviously not true. We could reduce spending to entirely eliminate the deficit. Also, increasing revenues is difficult because all you end up doing is dissuading investment. Similar to my first point above, rewarding certain behavior ensures you will get more of that behavior. Similarly, punishing certain behavior ensures you will get less of it. Obama wants to punish hard work and effort. He doesn't always use those terms but the effect of raising taxes on the highest producers is that you will get less of what they do. You will stymie investment and growth. Don't worry, we will see this effect over the next four years.

Except the one EXTREMELY large difference. Romney would have pushed to abolish Obama care and Obama wants Obama care to go forward to damage our economy and force people to buy a product.

 

How about this; time for Americans to stop ignoring the $16 trillion debt and current $1.44 trillion deficit. How pathetic and self-serving we are to not make hard choices today and pay our way! Anyone talking about tax reductions is greedy! Anyone refusing spending reductions is greedy! When did all of this personal greed become the standard behavior of so-called Americans?

 

Quite frankly, I'm envious of the wealthy and their comfortable lifestyles in the bad economy. I want them to be taxed at a higher rate than everyone else and Boehner will have to accept the mandate I created when I voted for the President.

 

It is truly sad to see this gross misrepresentation of who is receiving assistance from our government. We have something like 12 million Americans that are actively looking for work but can't get a job. We have tens of millions of Americans that are working every day of the week and still require assistnace often because they're raising children on their own. We have families where the wife is raising children and the man is working two jobs and still can't afford to provide adequite food and shelter on their low paying jobs. We have retireess trying to get by on a average income of $13 million (or less) from Social Security and we see many in their 80's still working bringing in shopping carts at the local market or doing other very low paying jobs just to supplement their meager income and they still need assistance. Yes, there are a few that abuse the system but they are an insignificant percentage of the overall need. If we cut off all of those that "abuse" the welfare system it wouldn't reduce the necessary expendatures by even 5% but that is generally ignored.

I actually proposed a budget based upon just spending cuts a year or so ago and watched everyone whine. First of all we can't cut Social Security and Medicare because both of those are grossly underfunded and all we'd do is create more need for welfare. We can't cut welfare for those in actual need which is the vast majority of those collecting welfare. We can cut the DOD budget by 50% and still be spending more than any other nation and still have the best military in the world but the "Republicans" whined their heads off. We can also shut down NASA, shutdwon the Dept of Homeland Security, shut down the DEA and end the War on Drugs, revise our immigration laws to allow anyone that wants to come to America to work to do so and cut the Border Patrol and INS in half, and a lot of other measures. Americans don't want to do that.

The Great Lie is that "capital" investments create jobs because overwhelmingly those types of investments don't. Buying stock in Microsoft, for example, doesn't furnish one dime to Microsoft as it's merely buying Microsoft stock from another person that previously bought it from another person that previously bought it from another person. The initial IPO that actually funded Microsoft was so long ago that I doubt anyone remembers it. Only IPO's fund enterprise and they are a very small segment of the investment market and very few large investors invest in initial IPO's. Commodities and money market investments that are a huge percentage of all investments create no jobs whatsoever. Overall investments in corporation actually produce very few jobs because 80% of all jobs are related to small businesses that were funded from the hard income of the original owner and not from investments by others. As I've previously noted a small business owner might work 12 hour days and earn $100,000 in net income and would pay over $32,000 while an investor in "Microsoft" could earn $100,000, never work a single day, and only pay $15,000 on their income. The small business owner creates jobs but the Microsoft investor didn't create any jobs. Not a single Replublican or anyone else can rationalize this tax break.

Mitt Romney would have also had to force people to purchase private insurance under his plan, he would have had to subsidize insurance for the poor and those with pre-existing conditions, and he proposed state run private insurance pools identical to Obamacare. He might have changed the name but Romney's proposals were virtually identical to Obamacare for anyone that read what Romney was actually proposing. Romney simply didn't say how he'd pay for it.

 

Cut the home mortgage deduction by phasing it out proportionately for adjusted gross income over 100k for married couples, and cap qualified mortgage indebtedness at a 150k max principal per taxpayer. That will raise revenues quickly, but will harm real estate prices.

 

You're envious of anyone who has anything.

 

so your ok with the rich paying the same rate as the working class, having ALL income be treated as income? if so, I am all for it, no more 13% for Romney, welcome to the world of the working class