A huge boost for Republicans this election!

Well the Dems do have a few in favor of extending all the Bush tax cuts.

But from what I see, it's really the Repubs that are the cause of this delay on a vote. They've got all their voting block working together to protect tax cuts for 2-3% of those that pay taxes, while they willingly risk the chance of raising taxes for the other 97% of us.

Obama and the Dems campaigned in 2008 on their plan to extend the tax cuts to 97%, while going back to the rates under Clinton for the top 3%. And they got voted in big time. No surprise here. I'd say give them what they got voted in for, then fight your battle next year, assuming you actually do take over congress. At least then you wouldn't risk raising taxes for everyone. Why risk raising taxes this year for everyone just to make a point?

During the last few years, the tax brackets for the next year have been announced by late October. Now it's not going to happen. So much for tax planning...

HEARTLESS wrote: Yes it is socialist. Only they are so pompous as to think they need to publish private information.

hey, the personal is the political. i like to know where the money is coming from.

besides. someone needs to pay for the glorious Bush years. why not the rich? they're the only ones who benefited.

archer wrote: would have been so simple if the republicans would just stop thinking about themselves and their wealthy cohorts and agree to vote to extend the cuts for the middle class.....I seriously doubt this country will sink into the abyss if the wealthy have to pay more taxes on the money they make over $250,000. Once again, Republicans show their true stripes......the middle class gets screwed because republicans owe too much to the wealthy and the corps who have paid them off. Sad, sad commentary on a political party that cares little for average Americans. It really sickens me that conservativs don't care if the little guys is suffering. Quite frankly this country cannot afford to keep the tax breaks for the wealthy, but that matters not to you conservatives, it's quite ok to raise the deficit when it's your friends you want to spend money on.....but not if it is the middle class. Clueless, you are all clueless.

If the Dems had passed cap n' trade, it would have hit the poor much harder than the rich. Would you say the Dems don't care about the poor? Bill Clinton started taxing Social Security benefits, another big tax on the poor! Bill Ritter (D) raised vehicle licensing fees especially high on older cars, more likely to be owned by the poor and older people. Who is really anti-poor?

As I recall the license fees for older cars was to close the loophole whereby people (not old but middle-age) were slapping "Collector" plates on their junkers to avoid paying normal license plate fees.

archer wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: With the majority in the house and senate and the Dems can't get anything done, yet we're all clueless. Keep showing your true colors lefties.

A majority does not get things done, even if republicans get a majority in both the house and the senate they will be just as hamstrung as the democrats have been. There is no cooperation, reaching across the aisle.....it's all about winning for your party and dealing a blow to the opposition party. And the American people be damned. You conservatives started this with your "party of NO", now may you reap what you have sown.

Sure there was reaching across the isle. 34 democrats reached across and agreed with the Republicans that in a recession we should not raise taxes on ANYONE, including those who create jobs. Just common logic and I am glad 15% of the Dems in the House finally saw it that way too. But the other 200 are too stubborn to reach across the isle to save this country and the economy and jobs.

And the whole party of No thing makes you sound uneducated and like a sheep. It is not true and educated people know this. They have plans and even tried to present a great healthcare plan that would have been 100% better according to economists, but the Democrats locked them out of the meetings and said no. When you repeat that tired line, it shows that you listen totally to the Main stream media without checking your facts. The Repblicans have presented as much if not more than the Dems and counters to all the Dems proposals but they Dems with their large egos, tell them NO before they even listen to it. The Dems are the party of NO other ideas than our will get voted on.

pineinthegrass wrote: Well the Dems do have a few in favor of extending all the Bush tax cuts.

But from what I see, it's really the Repubs that are the cause of this delay on a vote. They've got all their voting block working together to protect tax cuts for 2-3% of those that pay taxes, while they willingly risk the chance of raising taxes for the other 97% of us.

Those 2-3% supply jobs for up to 70% of the country. How stupid is it to raise their taxes in the middle of a recession so they have to lay off more people? And you can stop blaming the Republicans for willingly risking the chance of raising taxes for the other 97% of us. the Republicans have said yes to all of it. It is the Dems who are saying NO and won't vote for extending the tax cuts. So you can blame the dems if your taxes go up. the Republicans want all the extension of tax cuts and will vote yes in a heart beat. The Dems, the party of NO, are saying they won't even bring it up for a vote now. The Dems are in control in case you forgot. The Republicans can't even bring it up for a vote. the dems are throwing a tantrum and saying, 'we are taking our toys and going home, so screw the middle class!'

SS109 wrote: If the Dems had passed cap n' trade, it would have hit the poor much harder than the rich. Would you say the Dems don't care about the poor? Bill Clinton started taxing Social Security benefits, another big tax on the poor! Bill Ritter (D) raised vehicle licensing fees especially high on older cars, more likely to be owned by the poor and older people. Who is really anti-poor?

I have to call you out regarding your claim about Bill Clinton starting to tax Social Security.

If you want to blame the president during when it happened, then Ronald Reagan was the big taxer of Social Security. Under him, it went from no income taxes on Social Security benefits, to a 50% tax above certain incomes. Under Clinton, it went from 50% to 85%.

I'll let you do the math to figure out if Reagan or Clinton raised Social Security income taxes the most.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

The Viking wrote: And the whole party of No thing makes you sound uneducated and like a sheep. .

There you go again, when you don't have an intelligent response that makes any sense, you attack the poster....that sure fosters discussion.

The Viking wrote: Sure there was reaching across the isle. 34 democrats reached across and agreed with the Republicans that in a recession we should not raise taxes on ANYONE, including those who create jobs. Just common logic and I am glad 15% of the Dems in the House finally saw it that way too. But the other 200 are too stubborn to reach across the isle to save this country and the economy and jobs.

Yes, right before the November elections you can find 34 Dems (assuming that's a correct number) who want to try and save their ass in the elections. Repubs do the same thing too when they are in trouble. You mention 200 Dems being too stubborn, but how about most every Repub being just as stubborn? You being a bit selective (biased) here?

But after the election, you won't get that many Dems. And if the Repubs win, the Dems can probably block them with a filibuster in the Senate, just as the Repubs are threatening now.

So let me ask you Viking, are you really willing to go all out to keep a 3.9% tax cut for the 3% highest income Americans, and face the risk of increasing everyone else's taxes if you fail to protect them? Not to mention delaying any tax planning for all of us until after the elections instead of late Oct when we normally learn our new tax brackets. And how do you justify really thinking that a 3.9% tax increase, back to what it was before Bush, would really destroy the economy?

Or instead, why not wait until the voters prove they want a Repub majority, and then push for what you want without risking hurting all tax payers? How about letting the voters show that they really support this first?

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote: And the whole party of No thing makes you sound uneducated and like a sheep. .

There you go again, when you don't have an intelligent response that makes any sense, you attack the poster....that sure fosters discussion.

Are you serious? You can't read either? You take one sentence out of two posts and responses that I made and then say I don't have a response? Your cutting and pasting what you want to use against me won't cut it here. Too many intelligent people were able to read ALL of the post and the other one right after it and know that I didn't just post one sentence attacking you. You are WAY too sensitive. Please go and really read my posts and respond rather than deflecting like you did in this post again. There were about 15 other sentences that you convieniently ignored as usual because there are facts and logic in them.