Have they no shame? Republicans are vehemently anti-tax, right? AP journalist Charles Babington reports Republican support for allowing a tax cut to expire. On the rich, you ask? Hardly. On payroll taxes. On the working man.
I don't like to promote class conflict, but when oh when will the middle class show some solidarity? The Republicans are elitists and act in accordance. Dems and Independents better wake up before we shoulder the entire tax burden. Call your reps and speak up!
D.J. Diebold, Scottsdale/Mesa
Arizona Willie posted at 12:38 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
When is a tax increase not a tax increase for Republicans?
When it is a tax increase on the middle and lower classes.
The Republicans had NO problem when the Reagan Administration took away the deduction for personal interest.
Before Reagan people could deduct the interest they paid on their credit cards and car loans.
This was the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE in history and it fell squarely on the middle class.
Cerulean posted at 1:34 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
GOP, what is it about the Bush tax that you sooo favor? Is it because it permits the wealthy to keep more the dollars that were printed during the Bush administration (you remember - those debt ceiling increases)??
In one arena, you cry out that 47% of the people do not pay a tax! OH, so now you DO want to increase taxes?? The poor who earn a wage do pay a ‘payroll tax’ on their earnings. They pay their share for FICA and Unemployment. They do not pay as much income tax because they do not earn very much.
Do you really believe that community is better off with a few hundred mansions and castles on one side of town while on the other a multitude reside in destitute poverty?
This is a class warfare and the GOP have declared it!
A_Rose_By_Any_Other_Name posted at 2:44 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
It's about time the middle class and the bottom feeders started paying their fair share. Reagan increased tax revenues with his cuts, but you socialists always over look that fact. Even the Bush baby tax cuts helped bring in extra tax revenue. Never fails to bring a chuckle to hear you socialists talk about tax cuts for the wealthy as though they were at the expense of the poor. Those tax cuts were the impetus that helped expand our economy and put more of those poor people to work and that created more tax revenue for the progressive socialist in congress to spend on the poor, but the fact is that the poor don't want work, they want handouts. Cut the handouts, put everyone to work, and the economy corrects itself. Tax the rich till they stop investing, create even bigger government so it can continue the free handouts, and the country goes down the drain. Something Obozo and his good friend Bill Ayers seem to want. This is a excerpt from Bill Ayers book. "Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the INSIDE."
Cerulean posted at 3:17 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
"Those tax cuts were the impetus that helped expand our economy. . ." That is false!
Bush raised the debt ceiling, each time he did more money was printed, more money went to tax revenue AND more tax cuts were given to the wealthy!
How did this happen? Bush “temporarily postponed” the tax structure put in place by the Clinton administration. That structure included a higher tax on Individuals making $200,000 or more, couples making $500,000 or more and business profits of $500,000 or more.
We all owe the money (with interest) that Bush borrowed yet most of it ended up in the hands of the very wealthy. The GOP is now asking the poor to pay for the largess that the rich received!
Cerulean posted at 3:19 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
The GOP is not only asking the poor to pay for it, they are telling the middle class that we must pay for it too!
Accuracy posted at 4:16 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
On payroll taxes?? True, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Social Security (FICA) contribution is a payroll tax.
Social Security taxes: In 2005 participants started paying 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income and employers paid 6.2% in OASDI.
As part of President Obama’s compromise to extend former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2% for one year only.
Now Obama wants Congress to extend the 2% reduction for an additional year. Why? Because of the 2012 presidential election next year.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:26 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
Funny, Accuracy,
But when I was self employed, my FICA was 14.2%, not 12.4%. But I did get to deduct 7.1% from ordinary income so I got some break on income taxes.
Do Republicans know the difference between income taxes and payroll taxes? Or is it that only their tax accountants know?
Accuracy posted at 5:53 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
Payroll taxes are separate from income taxes. Payroll taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare; and it's listed as FICA. This year, most of Americans are paying 4.2% while their employers pay 6.2%.
D.J. Diebold’s letter “GOP to let tax cut on middle class expire” – and the Associated Press published piece – are sly insinuations that any Republican opposition for the 2% payroll tax reduction extension (for another year) is a failure to extend tax cuts temporarily and amounts to a tax increase.
A income tax hike?? – No. Or, a payroll tax hike or increase?? – No. Just a temporarily reduced payroll tax of gross compensation.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 6:43 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
"Now Obama wants Congress to extend the 2% reduction for an additional year. Why? Because of the 2012 presidential election next year. "
Yes Accuracy, this Obozo is going to be all about reelection from now on. That's why he threw the blacks under the bus when he gave his emancipation proclamation to the illegal aliens that were only misdemeanor criminals. Allowing millions of criminal illegals back on the street with legal rights to work hurts blacks more than any other group, but he doesn't care. The blacks love him and will vote for him overwhelmingly regardless of what he does to them. Now the Latinos were really threatening him with annulment of their support, but he did something for them so maybe the marriage is still on. I sure hope the 45% of whites that voted for him wake up and smell the putrefaction he has spread.
"We all owe the money (with interest) that Bush borrowed yet most of it ended up in the hands of the very wealthy. The GOP is now asking the poor to pay for the largess that the rich received!" Really? Having them pay their fair share of the payroll tax is asking the poor to pay for the largess that the rich receive? Pure exaggerated nonsense and you know it. Anyway, wealth always finds it's way back to the wealthy. It is, after all, why they are wealthy. They are intelligent and resourceful, and money just has a tendency to accumulate in their hands.
But hey Cerulean, you can't have it both ways. One time you complain that those evil conservative tea partiers wont allow raising the debt, and now you complain about Bush raising the debt ceiling? Very inconsistent of you. One might say hypocritical.
Cerulean posted at 7:24 pm on Mon, Aug 22, 2011.
NBTT wrote, "One time you complain that those evil conservative tea partiers wont allow raising the debt, and now you complain about Bush raising the debt ceiling?"
There is a difference and it lingers around the fact that President Obama had/has a plan to pay for the higher ceiling. His plan would eliminate some lucrative loop holes that oil companies and other industry take advantage of.
President Bush, it seems his only plan was to see how high he could make deficits rise.
There is no hypocrisy in my opinion, as they each have/had differing approaches to solving the debt problem.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 6:48 am on Tue, Aug 23, 2011.
Really Cerulean? Obummer's plan was to pay for a 1.7 trillion dollar debt hike (2010 only) by eliminating a few rich people tax loopholes? If you took every dime every rich person has in America it wouldn't come close to paying for this debt. I believe you're a hypocrite and a liar and a denier by plan. Oh and it's still Bush's fault. It always will be Bush's fault. Obozo will never accept responsibility and people like you will never ask him to because he's not capable of accepting responsibility.
sockratties posted at 6:31 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.
Nothing… you said “ I believe you’re a hypocrite and a liar and a denyer by plan.” and “this Obozo is going to be all about reelection from now on.” and “Obummer's plan.” and “Obozo will never accept responsibility.” It’s sad that you have a forum and squander it with churlish ramblings.
Do you find it necessary to resort to name calling and personal attacks against people who are voicing an opinion? Why do you go into a little snit and fume about your personal politics when you don’t agree with someon? Would you really like to live in a world where a majority of people think (or act) like you. Who would you be able to blame then? I suggest if you want to play in the sandbox you don’t pee in it.
A_Rose_By_Any_Other_Name posted at 9:20 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.
Oh, I'm almost reduced to tears to hear how sad NothingButhTheTruth has made you feel sockratties, or should I say sockrattle?. So, do you find it necessary to resort to calling NothingButTheTruth "Nothing"? Not that he minds I'm sure. What you find to be peeing in the sandbox, the rest of us call telling it like it is. If people are going to spew lies and half truths somebody needs to call them on it. Me think the pot is calling the kettle black.
A_Rose_By_Any_Other_Name posted at 9:21 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.
Obummer is setting us up for a disaster. Millions of Americans are out of work, millions of illegals will compete with them openly and millions more will try to join the fray. Obummer is creating a situation that will make it very difficult to cut any budget that might impact things like state and local employment, or the social safety net.
But cuts must be made if we are to survive as a nation -- setting us up for social friction that may well ignite across the nation. Obummer is creating a crisis that he will not waste.
In about fifteen months we can elect a president who will rescue us from this disaster. We had better choose carefully.
A_Rose_By_Any_Other_Name posted at 9:22 am on Wed, Aug 24, 2011.
Currently, the nation is $14.4 trillion in the hole — and the figure is growing.
With both sides of the political aisle debating ways to pare down the country’s mounting debt, it’s likely that the monumental $4 trillion that has already been incurred under President Barack Obama will raise some eyebrows. HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey has more:
In 31 months of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to the Treasury and CBS News, the US has added $4 trillion to its national debt. That approaches the presidential record set by George W. Bush of $4.9 trillion, but there’s a catch to that. Bush set that record in two terms — in 96 months.