Should The Rich Keep Bush Era Tax Breaks? Jon Kyl Says Yes
SodaHead News
2010/07/13 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
113 votes
|
|
64% | |||
|
63 votes
|
|
36% | |||
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) is fighting for the rights of Americans truly impacted by the recession. In spite of economic data indicating that the gap between rich and poor has never been greater in the U.S.A, John Kyl has taken a courageous stand against removing Bush era tax cuts on those earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year, even if it means the nation goes further into debt.
Congress has been considering scrapping the Bush era tax breaks because there is no funding to pay for them and they only add to America's growing budget deficit. However John Kyl believes that this isn't a problem. "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs," he said during an interview with Fox News.
While Kyl fights to keep tax breaks in place for the richest in the country, Republicans continue to stonewall extending unemployment insurance, leaving many middle and lower class Americans laid off during the recession to scrape by on meager savings and the goodwill of other Americans.
This Darwinian approach to economic politics is not garnering many fans among Democrats. “Unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again,” said Hari Sevugan, DNC press secretary.
Should The Rich Keep Their Tax Breaks?
Congress has been considering scrapping the Bush era tax breaks because there is no funding to pay for them and they only add to America's growing budget deficit. However John Kyl believes that this isn't a problem. "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs," he said during an interview with Fox News.
While Kyl fights to keep tax breaks in place for the richest in the country, Republicans continue to stonewall extending unemployment insurance, leaving many middle and lower class Americans laid off during the recession to scrape by on meager savings and the goodwill of other Americans.
This Darwinian approach to economic politics is not garnering many fans among Democrats. “Unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again,” said Hari Sevugan, DNC press secretary.
Should The Rich Keep Their Tax Breaks?
Top Opinion
-
GANGA~Patriotic Revolution ... 2010/07/13 16:30:15Yes. It's not their fault everyone else is poor.
If a company makes their money in America, they should support this country. People once were proud of their success, and glad that they were able to do their fair share. It's impossible to understand how some can be so greedy that they don't care about anyone but themselves. We wouldn't have won the war in 1944 if everyone was as selfish then, as they are today. Neighbors helped each other.
We need to be team players, not everyone out for himself. There are no great heroics here, if we can't give some consideration to other people and work together for the sake of our country. This inability to share equally in the hard work of getting back on track is destructive.
Bush cut taxes - and the deficit ballooned. Did his tax cuts drive prosperity and growth - as so many here claim it will? .Obviously....NO. Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Wasteful wars...huge govt deficits....imploding economy...GW Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. By a landslide.
Cut to January 2009: With major banks, insurers, and auto companies failing or about to fail, the entire economy was heading towards a death spiral. No exaggeration. Obama had NO CHOICE but to continue BIG deficit spending. Govt spending for TARP, unemployment benefits, public works projects, along with an accomodative Federal reserve, basically prevented an all-out depression . Under Obama, Geithner, and democratic leadership, the economy is SLOWLY starting to recover from the Bush years disaster.
So tax cuts do not drive prosperity. And sorry, Mitch McConnell, you ULTIMATE MORON- tax cuts do not bring in more tax revenues. With a fragile recovery, the govt cannot yet cut spending. In order to AT LEAST REDUCE the budget deficit, taxes must go up - at least to where they were before Bush cut them. There is no other option. And so who should taxes be raised from? a) the poor, or b) the wealthy? Asked and answered....
The Bush tax cuts were implemented in 2001 and 2003. From '95-'03, House majority leader was Dick Armey (R-Texas). From '03-'05, it was Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
From '97- '01, Trent Lott (R-Miss) was majority leader in the Senate. So the GOP also had the Senate majority for the first (2001) tax cut bill. Tom Daschle (D-SD) took over as majority leader in late 2001. But in 2003, the majority in Senate switched back to the GOP, with Bill Frist (R-TN) taking over as majority leader.
Check it.
So your assertion re: Dem control of house and senate is 75% wrong.
But even if your statement was correct - which it is not - Bush walked into a major budget surplus left by Clinton. With a president pushing for a tax cut - with a large budget surplus - it would have been political suicide for a senator or representative to say no. But that is how it should work: budget surpluses built up in good years, with deficit spending during recessions.
Thirdly - the balance of power in house and senate were much closer then than now. And there was MUCH less partisanship. But I'm fine if you don't agree with this statement. It is not even needed.
These tax cuts are called "Bush tax cuts" for a reason. They were driven by Dubya and his adminstration. Just as the Iraq war was.
Nice try though....(not really)
So don't feed me any crap!!!
Care to try again?
i know what I paid!
chief is flushing this country down the toilet! If you can't see that you are hopeless! You can thank Barney and Dodd for the housing/banking cluster! I repeat it is mine and I plan to hang on to as much of it as I can!
When these tax breaks for the "rich" expire next year, the poorest taxpayers get a 50% increase in their tax burden (bottom tax rate goes from 10% to 15%). How are you going to blame your favorite target for THAT?
We have to stop rewarding laziness in this country via welfare and free handouts.
We need to reward people who do work hard with a fair tax code. If we raise the taxes on the rich many will leave the country. New Zealand is one country that has lower taxes and they are advertising and looking for rich Americans to come there.
Is it fair to tax the people who work hard only to have their money given to people who are lazy cradle to grave welfare pigs? Welfare people have contributed NOTHING to this country they have given nothing back, yet expect everything to be handed to them.
As a side note, when January comes and ocommie lets the G W Bush tax cuts lapse, it is not only the rich who will suffer...Tax cuts
Revenue and Expense as % GDP
Deficit and debt increases 2001-2008Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
This is just the tip of the ic...
As a side note, when January comes and ocommie lets the G W Bush tax cuts lapse, it is not only the rich who will suffer...Tax cuts
Revenue and Expense as % GDP
Deficit and debt increases 2001-2008Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
This is just the tip of the iceberg that obama has instore for us.
Death tax
Estate tax
Capital gains tax
Forced IRA's
Healthcare tax
Wait people these are coming and more just like them!!!
It is so typical of liberal Democrat morons to believe that a tax cut is a cost to the government. It isn't their money in the first place, and it is proven over and over and over and over again that reduced taxes increase economic activity, and increase government revenue. Even the Democrat's revered icon JFK knew that!
There are only two possibilities here: liberals are either incredibly stupid and don't know that their policies are destroying the nation, or they know exactly what their policies are doing and are intentionally destroying the nation.
According to your "proven over and over and over again" theory - the economy should have been absolutely ROARING by the end of his term, with all those rich people now incented to hire people
Instead, Bush handed a near-depression economy over to Obama and the Dems, with the economy hemorrhaging jobs.
Proven? We are living through what is proven: that Bush was the worst president in history, and his tax cuts only made the rich richer, and did nothing to help create jobs.
Bush and the GOP (then AND now) want NO CONTROLS on business. NO regulation. Who has been pushing FINREG? The democrats. Who has been standing in the way of FINREG? The GOP. Capable of reading?
http://www.washingtonmonthly....
Oh - what's that? The GOP want a stronger bill? Yeah. Sure. That may be what they say. What they do is try to block any legislation that regulates or provides oversight to business. That's the way it is - and the way it always has been.
Just like with BP. Obama makes them pay $20b into an escrow account. And the GOP APOLOGIZES TO BP?? Why is that? Because they are COIN OPERATED! Bought and paid for by big business....whether oil companies, wall street, health insurers.
So continue with your namecalling tactics. Making logical arguments based on evidence does not seem to be your long suit.