@Qingu Actually, the GOP supported extending all tax cuts, so they supported keeping taxes low for poor, middle-class, and “wealthy” Americans.

Cantor does make a good point: we need to completely overhaul the tax code for a more simple and fair way to do it.

Their position is that the rich pay enough taxes, and the poor and middle income need to step up.
End this tax cut, and start paying up, sucka’s!

I think by many they meant many of the rich ones/ the ones who actually heard as opposed to the middle class majority of them. My dad I know for would like the rich to be taxed more instead of him. It may be just him and his friends, so don’t take my word on it.

ummm….because it will simply continue to add more to the deficit! When will you wake up to the fact that we have a HUGE problem on our hands and that the time to stop the bleeding is way over due??

Too small
Too temporary
It’s been tried and didn’t work.
Given the above, Too costly.

I can’t speak for all Republicans or even most of them but if you try it and it doesn’t work, it’s time to go to plan B. Assuming you have a plan B. Instead of just doing it again hoping for different results.

@Jaxk

Instead of just doing it again hoping for different results

Wasn’t that Barry’s favorite line? Said that Republicans believe in insanity?

Dude is all hat, no cattle and he knows it.

Not at all surprising considering where their actual allegiance lies.

@Jaxk Thank you for making me laugh. I’m just going to pretend that you are smart enough to figure out why I see a lot of irony and a hint of sarcasm in your answer.

I think it has a bit to do with the fact that many of them have yet to get the century-old news that supply-side economics and trickle-up don’t work. Or maybe they lack the knowledge to see how such a policy has ruined other economies throughout history.

Or maybe they really are bat-shit insane.

@jerv I have yet to see a policy itself be the impetus for a ruined economy…both sides of the isle IMO present sound policies that become an economic disaster because of the deal making compromise political brinkmanship maneuvers inevitably muss things up.

I read this article in the NYT’s that hammers home the point that it is never the legislation that gets passed it is the “deals” that get passed for the betterment of each party and NOT us the taxpayers!!

“But on Sept. 23, Democrats in the Senate decided to postpone a highly contentious floor fight over what to do about the expiring Bush-era tax cuts until after the November elections, a decision that spared some politically vulnerable incumbents from casting a potentially difficult vote to let some taxes rise.”

Because Republicans will do anything for wild, mind-bending sadistic sex. Even sell their souls.

@cletrans2col, “Actually, the GOP supported extending all tax cuts,”

Nope. Not this one. I’m guessing you didn’t read the article?

@Jaxk,

“Too small” —so nothing is better?

“Too temporary” —didn’t all these Republicans vote for the temporary extension of Bush tax cuts?

“It’s been tried and didn’t work.” —not sure what your rubric for “working” is. I certainly don’t see how you can argue the Bush tax cuts worked.

“Given the above, Too costly.” —and the Bush tax cuts, the greatest contribution to the deficit, aren’t?

@Cruiser, I think unemployment is a bigger problem right now than the deficit. Most economists believe that putting more money into the hands of those who will spend it—namely low and middle-class workers—will give the economy a boost, which will then give businesses a reason to hire more workers. Whereas giving more money to rich folks won’t because they tend to save their money, rather than putting it back into the economy.

But if you disagree and think the deficit is a bigger priority than unemployment, do you also oppose extending the Bush tax cuts?

Why do Republicans oppose extending the tax cut?

The answer is found in the NYT’s story you linked.:

”...But Republicans in Congress are balking, arguing that such a cut adds needlessly to the nation’s budget deficit, and should be replaced with an overhaul of tax policy instead.

“ ‘All tax relief is not created equal,” said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. ‘If the goal is job creation, Leader Cantor has long believed that there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll tax relief.’ ”

Also, ”...The cut resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011 and a total cost of $111.7 billion spread over 10 years. The rate will return to previous levels on Jan. 1 if Congress does not extend the cut. ...”

And, “Republicans argue that the tax cut robs Social Security of money without providing job growth or other benefits of a broader tax policy overhaul.

“ ‘Clearly it puts money in people’s pockets, and that’s good,’ said Sage Eastman, a spokesman for Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, a Republican member of the special committee. ‘But it doesn’t have impact on growing the economy and creating jobs, and that’s what our tax policy reform ought to be focused on.’ ”

@bkcunningham so do you support the Bush tax cuts, which add 700 billion to the deficit?

Do you think cutting rich people’s taxes is more effective at promoting job growth than cutting poor people’s taxes? If so, why?

For the record, the Republicans quoted in that article are flatly contradicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO says that tax cuts for high-income individuals are the least effective stimulus to the economy:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/cbo-tax-cuts-were-least-effective-stimulus-in-recovery-act.html

What does payroll taxes have to do with cutting “rich people’s taxes” or tax cuts for “high-income” individuals?

The Republicans who oppose payroll tax cut extension have demanded an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

I didn’t see that in the NYT’s article. Do you mean the tax cuts that will expire at the end of 2012?

@Qingu

As a matter of fact, I did support the tax temporary tax cut Bush passed in 2001. I was admittedly skeptical but we were struggling and it could help. It didn’t. Then again in 2010 when Obama wanted temporary tax cuts (the payroll cut) I was skeptical but it was being done a bit different. By putting the cuts into your paycheck, they might have a better chance of being spent and being spent over time. I was willing to give it a shot. It didn’t work. We’ve tried the temporary cuts twice now in two different fashions. Neither worked. Why would we want to try it again in the same fashion as the last failed attempt.

When Bush put the permanent (10 years, close enough) in place the economy immediately turned around. Remember that he passed them in 2003 and they were retroactive for 2003. Unemployment began to recover, government revenues began to recover, and the stock market; began to recover. I’d say the tax cuts worked. You may feel this is a simple coincidence, but it is hard to ignore (even though Democrats ignore it constantly). All three of these graphs show the Temporary tax cuts not working and the permanent cuts turning the economy around.

If you can show anything that indicates the temporary cuts actually worked, we could discuss it. Otherwise, I’ve done my job here.

So let me get this straight.

You oppose tax cuts when they are temporary, but support them when they are permanent?

@Jaxk, did you support temporarily extending Bush tax cuts in 2010?

I won’t even comment on Bush tax cuts “working” since 2000–2007 (before the recession) was a period of extremely low-growth relative to other similar periods when taxes were higher, plus the deficit exploded… but of course you know all that, Jaxk.

I’m more interested to watch the spectacle of your trying to justify not cutting taxes when they affect poor people.

@Qingu

I support programs that work. I don’t see anything in your response that would indicate the temporary tax cuts worked. I’m not really interested in you spin or attempts to deflect the issue.

@Jaxk, I cited the CBO. Payroll tax cuts are more effective than high-income tax cuts because poor people are more likely to spend the money. Your argument is that “The Bush tax cuts worked” ... even though they didn’t:

“The expansion that began in 2001 and ended in 2007 had average annual economic growth of 2.7 percent. That was the slowest of any expansion since World War II.”

Also, I’m not the one attempting to deflect the issue. You are. Please answer the question: did you support or oppose the temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010?

@Qingu

I see your trying to make a real argument. Not very accurate but trying nonetheless. The expansion did not occur in 2001, it started in 2003 (see my post with the graphs). The extension of the tax rates was neither a cut nor a change of any kind. It was merely keeping the tax rates that had been in place for 8 years. No change.

I assume since you aren’t posting anything to show the temporary tax cuts worked, that you have nothing. I would concur, there is no indication that temporary cuts work. So why spend more money we don’t have on programs that fail?

Don’t see how starting at 2003 rather than 2001 remotely helps your case:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66

Your own graphs also do not support your case; the unemployment graph flatly contradicts your case as it shot up in 2001 and steadied out in 2003.—Yikes, need coffee. Fair enough—unemployment steadied out, but then the same argument applies equally to the Obama stimulus, which you have repeatedly claimed didn’t work. Unemployment is also a lagging indicator.

Like usual, nothing but dishonesty from you.

And I’m confused as to what you are arguing about keeping/changing rates. Let’s say the Bush tax cuts ended briefly in 2010, but then they were up for a vote for temporarily expanding them for 2 years for the wealthiest Americans. Would you support that vote?

Let’s say payroll tax cut didn’t end briefly. Would you support expanding it? Would you support permanently expanding the tax cut for workers?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you about this? I’ll try again: did you support temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?

@Qingu

I really don’t need your idiot name calling nor your ‘what-if’ scenarios. Since you can’t show that the temporary cuts worked either time they’ve been tried, I’ll go watch the golf tournament. Which is surprisingly, is being played in NJ.

@Qingu Wrong.

The cuts for all Americans were set to expire, not just the wealthiest. You know that. But thanks for helping me practice my typing.

@Jaxk, not at all surprising.

@cletrans2col, the Dems didn’t want to extend them for the wealthiest Americans but the Republicans threw a hissy fit.

@Qingu No, extending the tax cuts for all Americans is not a hissy fit. It’s the right thing to do. There are other ways to get revenue, and raising the rates is not always the answer. And since I know you will ask, the first start is to end ALL tax breaks.

@cletrans2col, extend tax cuts but end ALL tax breaks? Did you just have an aneurysm or something?

Maybe you can answer the question that Jaxk couldn’t: do you think we should extend tax cuts for poor Americans?

@Qingu

Tax breaks are also referred to as tax subsides or credits. I want to keep the rates as they are, but get rid of all these subsides and breaks written into the tax code.

And to answer your question, I want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for ALL Americans.

@cletrans2col makes a very valid point in that these tax cuts do benefit the poor and middle classas well and when compared to a percentage of take home pay in a much more beneficial way that the uber rich who may barely notice this benefits effect.

“Obama also boasted that the payroll tax cut passed in December ‘put an extra $1,000 in the pockets of almost every single American.’ The president is giving an average for all taxpayers, not a figure for ‘almost every single American.’ The value of the tax cut depends on how much money each American makes. And the working poor ended up paying more as a result of the deal that included the payroll tax cut.

“The deal cut the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011. So, if you earn more, you save more. The tax cut will put an extra $2,136 in the pockets of those earning $106,800 a year. Any amount earned above that isn’t subject to the Social Security tax. Kiplinger published a handy chart and tax calculator on what the cut would mean for various income levels. Those making $50,000 a year would get nearly $1,000 even ($999.60) for the year in their pockets, and those earning $30,000 would take home an extra $600.

“But the payroll tax cut wasn’t a good deal for the working poor – those earning less than $20,000. The Tax Policy Center explained that the payroll tax deal meant the end of 2009’s and 2010’s Making Work Pay credit, which was a more beneficial for these low-wage earners. The Making Work Pay credit gave up to $400 to individuals earning between $6,452 and $75,000, and gave up to $800 to couples earning between $12,903 and $150,000. But, the TPC’s Roberton Williams explained in a Dec. 8, 2010, blog post, ‘you won’t get $400 from the payroll tax cut until your earnings reach $20,000; earnings have to be twice that high to yield the $800 that MWP gave to couples. So single taxpayers who earn less than $20,000 and married couples earning less than $40,000 will pay more in taxes under the payroll tax cut than under MWP.’

‘The TPC also produced a chart showing the winners and losers of the tax cut trade-off. About 51 million Americans were better off with the Making Work Pay credit — they’ll pocket $210 less on average for the year. But there are nearly 73 million other Americans who fare much better under Obama’s more recent tax deal.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/factchecking-obamas-budget-speech/

@Cruiser, in one sense I agree with you in that $1000 matters much more to a poor person than $10,000 matters to a rich person. In another sense, why bother with the tax cuts for the rich at all? They’d save tens of billions of dollars (32 billion a year) and they have little to no economic benefit.

@bkcunningham, your link doesn’t say what you’ve quoted. Here’s the correct link (no biggie.)

And I agree that the plan agreed to was a shitty deal for poor people. But the link isn’t saying that the payroll tax cut is worthless or unhelpful. It’s saying that the cut was offset by ending another credit, and the net result screwed over poor people. I also think it’s clear where the blame rests for this—I never heard any Republicans clamoring to keep the Make Work Pay credit.

@cletrans2col, so you do favor extending the payroll tax cuts? Because they’d certainly benefit a lot of Americans.

Or are you saying you only favor extending tax cuts that affect all Americans, and not tax cuts that affect most Americans?

Why is it so hard to get an answer from conservatives about this simple question?

Thanks @Qingu for the correct link. I had two pages up and copied the wrong address.