Certain Repubs Want to Cave to Dems

Like I said in the topic with Rand Paul. Let Dems have what they want. After caving on the tax hike, we can move onto other more important arguments, like reforming entitlement programs. Well, as nice as that sounds, I don't think gorging on the rich alone will satisfy the left. Funny how the tax rate would be near 40%. What's enough? Eighty percent?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 ... scal-deal/

Also funny how Fox is reporting certain members of the GOP caving in........

It would be the same as it was under the 8 years of Clinton prosperity, and 23.1 million jobs created..... 39.6%... Back when a LOT of people were getting a good shot at the American economy, and not just the wealthiest 2%

Funny how you always fail to mention that the 39.6% amount would ONLY apply to the amounts OVER $250,000...which only applies to the top 2% of wealthy people, (and only the top 3% of so-called "small businesses")...(who have gotten 93% of the wealth created since 2000)... Even the top 2% would still see the first $250K of their income get the same tax-breaks as everyone else...

I'm still waiting...(as is the rest of America)...for those jobs to trickle-down from the 2%... Oh, wait...It appears most of them just hide it offshore, or use it for their own amusement... Isn't it fascinating how no one can seem to point to a case where a savings of a few percent on personal wealth has EVER created a job? As a matter of fact, no one sits down with their extra money and says, "I think I'll create a job with it..." What creates jobs? Demand. What creates demand? People with disposable income to buy whatever goods/services are there. No demand?...No job-creation. So? What's the GOP answer? Screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to give more tax-breaks to people who A) don't need them; and, seemed to be doing just fine with the 39.6% rate they had before...

Imagine my surprise...

Oh, and Fox also reported that RMoney was going to win by a landslide...

LadyJazzer wrote: It would be the same as it was under the 8 years of Clinton prosperity, and 23.1 million jobs created..... 39.6%... Back when a LOT of people were getting a good shot at the American economy, and not just the wealthiest 2%

Funny how you always fail to mention that the 39.6% amount would ONLY apply to the amounts OVER $250,000...which only applies to the top 2% of wealthy people, (and only the top 3% of so-called "small businesses")...(who have gotten 93% of the wealth created since 2000)... Even the top 2% would still see the first $250K of their income get the same tax-breaks as everyone else...

I'm still waiting...(as is the rest of America)...for those jobs to trickle-down from the 2%... Oh, wait...It appears most of them just hide it offshore, or use it for their own amusement... Isn't it fascinating how no one can seem to point to a case where a savings of a few percent on personal wealth has EVER created a job? As a matter of fact, no one sits down with their extra money and says, "I think I'll create a job with it..." What creates jobs? Demand. What creates demand? People with disposable income to buy whatever goods/services are there. No demand?...No job-creation. So? What's the GOP answer? Screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to give more tax-breaks to people who A) don't need them; and, seemed to be doing just fine with the 39.6% rate they had before...
Imagine my surprise...

Oh, and Fox also reported that RMoney was going to win by a landslide...

Too much of a loon to argue with. You got a lot of things backwards. I'll correct it, Libs "screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to justify everything from housing to food." Let's just force anyone that makes anything to pay for those that don't work or flat out don't WANT to do a damn thing? From the first part of your post, you're even MORE of a loon. 39% seems reasonable to you? You're as greedy as the people you lambast.

Edit: And what do I propose? Well, I'm not much for repeating myself like you.

Yes... 39.6% seems very reasonable to me... FOR THE AMOUNTS OVER the FIRST $250,000...(WHICH ONLY APPLIES TO THE TOP 2% of the population...)

Just for reference...Here is what they've paid in the past:

Tax year Top marginal
tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1> Taxable
income over--
1913......... 7..... 500,000
1914......... 7 ..... 500,000
1915......... 7 ..... 500,000
1916......... 15 ..... 2,000,000
1917......... 67..... 2,000,000
1918......... 77..... 1,000,000
1919......... 73 ..... 1,000,000
1920......... 73..... 1,000,000
1921......... 73..... 1,000,000
1922......... 58..... 200,000
1923......... 43.5..... 200,000
1924......... 46..... 500,000
1925......... 25..... 100,000
1926......... 25..... 100,000
1927......... 25..... 100,000
1928......... 25..... 100,000
1929......... 24..... 100,000
1930......... 25..... 100,000
1931......... 25..... 100,000
1932......... 63..... 1,000,000
1933......... 63..... 1,000,000
1934......... 63..... 1,000,000
1935......... 63..... 1,000,000
1936......... 79..... 5,000,000
1937......... 79..... 5,000,000
1938......... 79..... 5,000,000
1939......... 79..... 5,000,000
1940......... 81.1..... 5,000,000
1941......... 81..... 5,000,000
1942......... 88..... 200,000
1943......... 88..... 200,000
1944......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1945......... 94..... <2>..... 200,000
1946......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1947......... 86.45..... <3> 200,000
1948......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1949......... 82.13..... <4> 400,000
1950......... 84.36..... 400,000
1951......... 91..... <5> 400,000
1952......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1953......... 92..... <6> 400,000
1954......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1955......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1956......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1957......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1958......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1959......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1960......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1961......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1962......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1963......... 91..... <7> 400,000
1964......... 77..... 400,000
1965......... 70..... 200,000
1966......... 70..... 200,000
1967......... 70..... 200,000
1968......... 75.25..... 200,000
1969......... 77..... 200,000
1970......... 71.75 ..... 200,000
1971......... 70..... 60 200,000
1972......... 70..... 50 200,000
1973......... 70..... 50 200,000
1974......... 70..... 50 200,000
1975......... 70..... 50 200,000
1976......... 70..... 50 200,000
1977......... 70..... 50 203,200
1978......... 70..... 50 203,200
1979......... 70..... 50 215,400
1980......... 70..... 50 215,400
1981......... 69.125..... 50 215,400
1982......... 50..... 85,600
1983......... 50 ..... 109,400
1984.......... 50..... 162,400
1985.......... 50..... 169,020
1986......... 50..... 175,250
1987 .........38.5..... 90,000
1988......... 28..... <8> 29,750 <8>
1989......... 28..... <8> 30,950 <8>
1990......... 28..... <8> 32,450 <8>
1991......... 31..... 82,150
1992......... 31..... 86,500
1993......... 39.6..... 89,150
1994......... 39.6..... 250,000
1995......... 39.6..... 256,500
1996......... 39.6..... 263,750
1997......... 39.6..... 271,050
1998......... 39.6..... 278,450
1999......... 39.6..... 283,150
2000......... 39.6..... 288,350
2001......... 39.1..... 297,350
2002......... 38.6..... 307,050
2003......... 35..... 311,950

---

Gee, however did those tycoons and top "job-creators"... ( rofllol I love that term "job-creators"... It's so----Neanderthal...)... manage to make so much money between 1932 and 1982...?

Jekyll wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It would be the same as it was under the 8 years of Clinton prosperity, and 23.1 million jobs created..... 39.6%... Back when a LOT of people were getting a good shot at the American economy, and not just the wealthiest 2%

Funny how you always fail to mention that the 39.6% rate would ONLY apply to the amounts OVER $250,000...which only applies to the top 2% of wealthy people, (and only the top 3% of so-called "small businesses")...(who have gotten 93% of the wealth created since 2000)... Even the top 2% would still see the first $250K of their income get the same tax-breaks as everyone else...

I'm still waiting...(as is the rest of America)...for those jobs to trickle-down from the 2%... Oh, wait...It appears most of them just hide it offshore, or use it for their own amusement... Isn't it fascinating how no one can seem to point to a case where a savings of a few percent on personal wealth has EVER created a job? As a matter of fact, no one sits down with their extra money and says, "I think I'll create a job with it..." What creates jobs? Demand. What creates demand? People with disposable income to buy whatever goods/services are there. No demand?...No job-creation. So? What's the GOP answer? Screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to give more tax-breaks to people who A) don't need them; and, seemed to be doing just fine with the 39.6% rate they had before...
Imagine my surprise...

Oh, and Fox also reported that RMoney was going to win by a landslide...

Too much of a loon to argue with. You got a lot of things backwards. I'll correct it, Libs "screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to justify everything from housing to food." Let's just force anyone that makes anything to pay for those that don't work or flat out don't WANT to do a damn thing? From the first part of your post, you're even MORE of a loon. 39% seems reasonable to you? You're as greedy as the people you lambast.

Edit: And what do I propose? Well, I'm not much for repeating myself like you.

Gee, still didn't address any of the FACTS... Just throw more personal insults and deflect... Imagine my surprise....

Here...I'll state it again, in case you need to read slower or you're having comprehension problems:

It would be the same as it was under the 8 years of Clinton prosperity, and 23.1 million jobs created..... 39.6%... Back when a LOT of people were getting a good shot at the American economy, and not just the wealthiest 2%

Funny how you always fail to mention that the 39.6% rate would ONLY apply to the amounts OVER $250,000...which only applies to the top 2% of wealthy people, (and only the top 3% of so-called "small businesses")...(who have gotten 93% of the wealth created since 2000)... Even the top 2% would still see the first $250K of their income get the same tax-breaks as everyone else...

I'm still waiting...(as is the rest of America)...for those jobs to trickle-down from the 2%... Oh, wait...It appears most of them just hide it offshore, or use it for their own amusement... Isn't it fascinating how no one can seem to point to a case where a savings of a few percent on personal wealth has EVER created a job? As a matter of fact, no one sits down with their extra money and says, "I think I'll create a job with it..." What creates jobs? Demand. What creates demand? People with disposable income to buy whatever goods/services are there. No demand?...No job-creation. So? What's the GOP answer? Screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to give more tax-breaks to people who A) don't need them; and, seemed to be doing just fine with the 39.6% rate they had before...

LadyJazzer wrote:

Jekyll wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It would be the same as it was under the 8 years of Clinton prosperity, and 23.1 million jobs created..... 39.6%... Back when a LOT of people were getting a good shot at the American economy, and not just the wealthiest 2%

Funny how you always fail to mention that the 39.6% rate would ONLY apply to the amounts OVER $250,000...which only applies to the top 2% of wealthy people, (and only the top 3% of so-called "small businesses")...(who have gotten 93% of the wealth created since 2000)... Even the top 2% would still see the first $250K of their income get the same tax-breaks as everyone else...

I'm still waiting...(as is the rest of America)...for those jobs to trickle-down from the 2%... Oh, wait...It appears most of them just hide it offshore, or use it for their own amusement... Isn't it fascinating how no one can seem to point to a case where a savings of a few percent on personal wealth has EVER created a job? As a matter of fact, no one sits down with their extra money and says, "I think I'll create a job with it..." What creates jobs? Demand. What creates demand? People with disposable income to buy whatever goods/services are there. No demand?...No job-creation. So? What's the GOP answer? Screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to give more tax-breaks to people who A) don't need them; and, seemed to be doing just fine with the 39.6% rate they had before...
Imagine my surprise...

Oh, and Fox also reported that RMoney was going to win by a landslide...

Too much of a loon to argue with. You got a lot of things backwards. I'll correct it, Libs "screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to justify everything from housing to food." Let's just force anyone that makes anything to pay for those that don't work or flat out don't WANT to do a damn thing? From the first part of your post, you're even MORE of a loon. 39% seems reasonable to you? You're as greedy as the people you lambast.

Edit: And what do I propose? Well, I'm not much for repeating myself like you.

Gee, still didn't address any of the FACTS... Just throw more personal insults and deflect... Imagine my surprise....

Here...I'll state it again, in case you need to read slower or you're having comprehension problems:

It would be the same as it was under the 8 years of Clinton prosperity, and 23.1 million jobs created..... 39.6%... Back when a LOT of people were getting a good shot at the American economy, and not just the wealthiest 2%

Funny how you always fail to mention that the 39.6% rate would ONLY apply to the amounts OVER $250,000...which only applies to the top 2% of wealthy people, (and only the top 3% of so-called "small businesses")...(who have gotten 93% of the wealth created since 2000)... Even the top 2% would still see the first $250K of their income get the same tax-breaks as everyone else...

I'm still waiting...(as is the rest of America)...for those jobs to trickle-down from the 2%... Oh, wait...It appears most of them just hide it offshore, or use it for their own amusement... Isn't it fascinating how no one can seem to point to a case where a savings of a few percent on personal wealth has EVER created a job? As a matter of fact, no one sits down with their extra money and says, "I think I'll create a job with it..." What creates jobs? Demand. What creates demand? People with disposable income to buy whatever goods/services are there. No demand?...No job-creation. So? What's the GOP answer? Screw as many people out of as much income as possible, in order to give more tax-breaks to people who A) don't need them; and, seemed to be doing just fine with the 39.6% rate they had before...

Earlier in the year it was taxes were going to be raised on the richest 1% now it is up to the richest 2%. How long before you want to raise taxes on the Richest 20%, 30% and so on?

Why is it so wrong that someone keeps what they earn?

Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

Bushes tax cuts expired. Obama extended them thus making them his tax cuts from that point on.
I am not opposed to returning the taxes back to what they were under Clinton.

Now can you please answer the questions that I asked you?

Earlier in the year it was taxes were going to be raised on the richest 1% now it is up to the richest 2%. How long before you want to raise taxes on the Richest 20%, 30% and so on?

Why is it so wrong that someone keeps what they earn?

Obama compromised to extend them in order to ensure that the teabaggers wouldn't screw the middle-class. Now, why don't you use the ol' "Obama had a veto-proof majority for two years"...That's about as relevant...)

You didn't answer any of my questions. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. Why is it so wrong that the top 2%, who have raked in 93% of the wealth created since Bush's unpaid-for tax-cuts, should pay the extra 4.6% on the amount OVER $250K, and pay their fair share...(which is what they were paying during the Clinton-era, when 23.1 million jobs were created?) (Interesting how 81% of the American people say that they believe the top 2% should see their personal rates go up...)

The "2%" number comes from the GAO estimate of the number of people making over-$250,000... The law doesn't say "Gee, let's raise the tax rates on 2% instead of 1%"...It says, "..on those making over $250,000, on THE AMOUNT over $250,000"... If that works out to be 2% instead of 1%, then I guess they must have more precise data now. But you knew that.

Boehner got to meet with BHO at the White House yesterday. Looks like it is going to be Jim and Barack against the fiscal conservatives in the House. BTW SNL had a cute bit about the GOP stealing crybaby's milk.