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.
This administration chose to kill the goose & eat well once.
They don't work, they invest and that money never gets into the general economy!
Every tax break returns only $0.27 to the economy, but every dollar in unemployment returns $1.62.
The wealthy don't have to spend, the poor have to pay their bills, buy food, etc.
The wealthy invest that extra money.
BP is in bed with BO, Bp also gave a ton to BO campaign. How come BO only collected 20B from BP? This figure is a mere drop in the bucket. And, when BP was drilled by the US reps, this was a joke, it was nothing but a dog and pony show. Talk about propaganda.
And you must know - the total liability/payout is in no way limited to the $20b. This represents inital funding - that will have to be replenished if legitimate damages exceed $20 billion. You know that - yes?
Second, no country goes from losing over 700,000 jobs per month, to creating jobs overnight. But if you look at a graph of job growth - the monthly job losses had been shrinking almost every month since the Obama admin came into power. THEN - in March and April 2010 - job growth was strongly POSITIVE: adding nearly 500,000 jobs during those months. The graph in the attached article says it all.
http://www.washingtonmonthly....
In summary: your perception of what is happening could not be more out of line with what is happening.
"Companies are reporting HUGE profits now!! Intel, Apple, Alcoa, CSX. The economy is recovering, and companies - and senior management - are making out like bandits. They have plenty of profits/cash NOW to hire more people - but they are not."
The large companies in the U.S. don't necessarily employ the most people. It's small companies that employ more people and since most small companies are Sub "S" Corps. profits or losses pass through to the shareholders 1040. It might be news to you but Sub "S" Corps. don't usually issue stock options. They probably don't even issue stock certificates since ownership is closely held within families or other close relationships.
The motivation of large or small companies to hire more people isn't related to cash on hand or profits. People are hired when there is more demand for the companies products or services than the company is able to produce. The hard truth is many companies have made changes internally that make them more efficient and consequently more profitable with fewer employees. Obviousl...
"Companies are reporting HUGE profits now!! Intel, Apple, Alcoa, CSX. The economy is recovering, and companies - and senior management - are making out like bandits. They have plenty of profits/cash NOW to hire more people - but they are not."
The large companies in the U.S. don't necessarily employ the most people. It's small companies that employ more people and since most small companies are Sub "S" Corps. profits or losses pass through to the shareholders 1040. It might be news to you but Sub "S" Corps. don't usually issue stock options. They probably don't even issue stock certificates since ownership is closely held within families or other close relationships.
The motivation of large or small companies to hire more people isn't related to cash on hand or profits. People are hired when there is more demand for the companies products or services than the company is able to produce. The hard truth is many companies have made changes internally that make them more efficient and consequently more profitable with fewer employees. Obviously you have never run a company and don't understand the simple reality that you don't hire more people to be more profitable. This is a fundamental principal, the law of "supply and demand." When the demand goes up and you can't keep up with it, then you hire more employees to keep up with that demand.
"They'll let it flow to the bottom line, so their stock options are worth more. Further tipping the % of GDP going to the top 5-10%, while the bottom 90-95% bottom feed."
This is probably one of the most ignorant statements you made. The value of stock options don't affect the GDP. GDP is a calculation of private consumption + investment + government spending + net import/exports. I don't have a clue what you are talking about (and obviously neither do you) when you say "tipping the % of GDP to the top 5-10%, while the bottom 90-95% bottom feed." What the hell does that mean? Don't bother, it doesn't make any sense.
"THIS is what the GOP - Kyl, McConnell, Boehner, Bachmann, et al....are FIGHTING FOR!! They are NOT fighting for the vast majority of Americans. Don't buy the SHI* that they are trying to sell as "anti-socialism". They are doing the bidding of BIG OIL, BIG BANKING, and other BIG MONEY INTERESTS. It is so obvious!"
If you are claiming that fighting for capitalism and a free market is "SHI*" you need to know that it is antithesis of socialism. For you to claim that Republicans are "doing the bidding of BIG OIL, BIG BANKING, and other BIG MONEY INTERESTS" then how do you account for the treatment the Obama administration has given these same industries and the contributions these industries has given to Democrats? BP has given more than $3.5 Million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, the largest amount going to Obama, $77,051.00 to be exact. This was the MOST any person received from BP over the 20 years. Do we need to even mention the payback Obama made to the auto unions, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Citigroup, etc. All of these entities gave huge amounts of money to Obama's campaign.
So trentinafur, I've given you a few "sentences together" to express my point of view. The real question now is whether you have the intelligence to understand what I've written. But I'm sure you will search hard for a spelling mistake.
Until you quit teaching socialist propaganda to 10 year olds and actually get a job where you have to work 7 days a week, 12 months a year, you can keep your liberal "the world owes me a living" attitude to yourself.
I'm curious, why do you think you need to defend trentinafur? Is it because he's incapable of substantiating his load of crap or are you actually one in the same? You are the puppet. You are what is wrong with public schools, you're educated beyond your intelligence.
Hmmm. That's an interesting one, Skippy. I guess it's intended to be an insult. Would the converse therefore be a compliment? "My, my.....aren't YOU undereducated for your intelligence!"
I don't think I'll be handing that one out. But your comment did make me chuckle.
Allow the rich to keep their tax breaks under conditions they are creating jobs. If not, tax 'em.
Dole out of more entitlements don't create any jobs. When was the last time you heard of a welfare recipient putting people to work?