WASHINGTON — In a political gamble that will reverberate through the November election, the Senate approved President Obama’s plan to keep tax rates the same for all but the top 2 percent of American taxpayers.
Democrats think Wednesday’s action will shift the debate in a Congress that has been stalemated by partisan inaction, giving momentum to Obama’s proposal — and drawing a contrast with Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The Senate approved the measure, 51-48, with two Democrats joining solid GOP opposition.
Congress’ failure to extend the lower tax rates from the George W. Bush administration would result in a tax increase on most Americans, a prospect that poses enormous risk for both parties.
Democrats rejected a Republican proposal Wednesday, 54-45, to extend the tax cuts for all Americans. Two Republicans, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Susan Collins of Maine, crossed party lines to oppose the measure; one Democrat, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, joined the GOP.
Vice President Joe Biden — who could vote only to break a tie — presided.
That provoked a spirited debate between party leaders in the usually cordial chamber.
“Republicans should not force middle-class families off their fiscal cliff to protect more wasteful giveaways to millionaires and billionaires,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “We’re on the side of the American people.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, reminded senators that he and the vice president had negotiated the 2010 deal extending the then-expiring Bush tax rates for two more years — until this December.
McConnell said Biden, who under Senate rules could not engage in debate, should be “grateful” he did not have to explain the difference in the White House’s position between then and now.
“This is a debate I don’t think you would want to lead,” McConnell said.
Biden and McConnell later exchanged words on the Senate floor.
In 2010, some Democrats pressed to raise rates on the wealthy, but others feared that would cost them the election in a year of anti-tax fervor. As all the tax cuts were about to expire, Democrats decided to keep lower rates for all taxpayers, but many have felt remorse over that deal. This year, the party is playing hardball on the issue.
Obama congratulated the Senate after the vote.
“House Republicans are now the only people left in Washington holding hostage the middle-class tax cuts,” he said in a statement. “It’s time for House Republicans to drop their demand for another $1-trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and give our families and small businesses the financial security and certainty that they need.”
Senate passage of the tax measure puts pressure on the House, where Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has set votes for next week on the GOP proposal to preserve lower rates for all taxpayers.
Obama wants to keep tax rates at their current levels for most Americans, but raise rates on income above $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The top tax bracket would rise from 35% to 39.6%.
The Democrats’ plan would also boost rates on capital gains and dividends among higher earners and allow the estate tax to revert to its 2001 level: a 55% tax rate on inheritances, with an exemption on the first $1 million.
Keeping the lower tax rates for upper-income earners, as Republicans prefer, would add $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Republicans say higher rates would punish small-business owners. Nearly a million taxpayers, about 2.5% of those who file as corporations, would be affected, according to tax analysts.
Under the Republican plan, certain tax breaks for middle- and lower-income earners that were first approved as part of Obama’s economic recovery program in 2009 would be dropped. Republicans say those breaks for college costs and tax refunds for the working poor have not helped to stimulate the economy, and should be discontinued.
Neither the House nor Senate bills are expected to become law, but will be starting points for negotiations after the election — in the weeks before the tax cuts are due to expire.
© 2012 the Los Angeles Times
Distributed by MCT Information Services
Well, I certainly hope President Obama sticks to his guns this time around and doesn’t cave to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. One can truly see who is for the middle class and who is against the middle class.
And who is against the American people! obama will do whatever he can to destroy America!
Do you honestly believe that?
I do!
James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter
Dear Lord where did you come from?
By continuing to give tax cuts to the rich is what is damaging America.
That’s communist talk, pbmann! Don’t be one of those pro- regulation, tax hiking, killers of the American economy and way of life. Really this kind of stuff that Sen. Collins is doing is the worse. Next thing you know she’ll be for blowing up mountains for the wind power profiteering greens!
have you ever worked for a poor man? how many poor people do you think employ people?
If your trying to convince us that all rich people are job creators, it’s a fair question to ask, Where Are The Jobs ? The top 2% of people in this country have been the beneficiaries of tax breaks for the past 20 to 30 years so why were we bleeding 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month when Bush left office?
I have worked for many people and not one of them would qualify as a “job creator” under Republican rules of the very rich being required to create jobs.
That’s just crazy talk.
People who think like you are contributing to the class warfare that the President is spearheading. This is not good for our nation. How does giving Government more money help anyone? Welfare fraud is at the all time highest, along with welfare itself. Giving Government more money is taking money away from the private sector.
The middle class and poor have been the victims of class warfare for decades!
I know, look who has been ruling Maine for the last 3o+ years, until recently.
And look at how off topic you are.
That’s not off topic, its right on!
Who runs Maine has NOTHING to do with federal income tax/capital gains rates. Seriously.
Good thing we didn’t have election every two years during that period…., oops, we did!
Maybe if Republicans had put up better candidates over that thirty year period they would have won more elections.
I’ll abide by election results. Republicans controlled for 118 years from 1856 to 1975, except for two election cycles, then they controlled at least one chamber for three years since ’75 until 2010.
If Democrats can’t fulfill the desires of the voters Republicans deserve to be elected and, of course, if Republicans ignore the wishes of the voters…. begone. Now, if we could just stop the purchasing of elections – by either side – get it out of our system, candidates one on one discussing the issues and proposed resolutions instead of the hyperbole we see in Ads and on these post comments, we’d have a better governing system. You’ve just gotta love a democracy.
I did quite well during those 30 years. Now….. well, it is a bit tight.
Did you get everything for free provided by the Government then? Because you wouldn’t be doing fine under the last 2 knuckleheads that ran this State because they buried us!
Why is it that people like you think everyone who does well must be freeloading? You all have some serious issues. Nope…. you are wrong. Paid my way all by myself. Own my home all by myself. Own my car all by myself. Buy my food with my own money. Have been employed all those 30 years. Now retired and living simply. It is a good life here in Maine.
What are you talking about “…get everything for free provided by the Government…”? I work my butt off and get absolutely nothing at all from Uncle Sam. I am barely getting by. Where do you get off making such a sweeping inaccurate statement like that? What a load of baloney you are foisting. I know lots of folks who work way hard and get nothing for free.
“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the
oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash
between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who
want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that
kind of clash, but I don’t think it will be based on the color of the skin…”
― Malcolm X
looks like you have bought into the Obama class warfare mess… time to bring it up a notch.. it’s not the middle class who hires people or expands their business’.. it ‘ s likely not you would would take extra money that you have and open a new location, or add a new product or open a new sales territory… is it.. it makes no sense at all to increase taxes on anyone at any level during a recession.. why can’t you figure that out.. as for Collins.. she needs to go back to school .. good thing the folks in Portland like her nobody else will when this backfires on her .. as it surely will
I think the middle class certainly does help with business and hiring. This country is mostly made up of small businesses. Most of the small business owners are middle class and struggling to make ends meet, keep their employees and their business open. The businesses that are expanding, and those that have been largely expanded, get help from government grants, and tax breaks. Who pays for that? Oh, that’s right, our taxes.
It is not class warfare. The Republican’s have been waging class warfare for 30 years and now, finally, the Middle Class is waking up to it.
Could you explain this : the democratic party has been in control for many years and the middle class has dissapeared, what’s up with that ?
///
The Democratice party was in comtrol for 4 years, but the GOP was in control for 1o yrs and totally destroyed the American Economy.
The Republican’s control the House from 1994 until 2006, the Senate from 2000 to 2002 until one of their own (Jeffers) became an independant because of the radicalization of the Republican party and Bush was president from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009.
The first part of this century, when Republican’s controlled bouth houses and the Presidency is when the Middle Class started to suffer from the Class Warfare being waged against them.
Now the Middle Class is starting to wake up and that scares the bejessus out of the Republicans and their rich masters.
BS and you know it!
So what part of my post was not accurate?
The time frame when Republican’s controlled both houses and the Presidency or the fact that the Middle Class is slowly waking up to the Rich’s warfare against the Middle Class?
First of all, the Democratic Party hasn’t had the control you think. Republicans have had enough representation to fillibuster Democratic initiatives. The middle class is struggling because of the high cost of fuel, food, health care, and by the fact that the “job providers” shipped our good paying manufacturing jobs overseas. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Data please. Valid data.
If you can’t see that this President has been on a class warfare rampage since before he was elected, then you are what’s wrong with America!
Give some examples of this Class Warfare Obama has been waging?
Hmm by trying to make the people that don’t work and don’t have insurance reap the benefits of those that do to provide them with everything for free! That’s just one example. And if you’re so sure that the Republicans are doing this, then I would love to see you provide an example.
Isaiah. 10:1-3. “Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights… Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar?”
That’s been happening for years, not just under the current administration. And, by the way, not everyone who receives assistance is undeserving. I agree, people who don’t work simply because they’re lazy is a burden to all of us who do honest work for a living.
A really really really small fraction of federal spending goes to welfare programs. And President Obama just passed a law that compels people to purchase their own insurance if they don’t have it. Soooo…um…..what are you talking about?
Ummmm, haven’t you heard there is a shrinking middle class. Those businesses, we have already heard from retailers, depend on that middle class to keep their businesses alive. You better believe a healthy middle class keeps people employed and creates new jobs. If enough people boycott your business you are going down.
Um, it ABSOLUTELY is the middle class who hire people and expand their business. You think plumbers, restaurant owners, mechanics, and all the rest of the small local businesses – who still are the backbone of our country – you think therse people are in the top 2%?
What you are saying is mostly true, but the owners of the shoe factories, paper mills, and other manufacturing jobs are not part of the middle class. Small business owners do need support and our patronage.
True about the large business owners but they aren’t hiring,are they 9they just xexport jobs if they have theM). You’re darn right we need to support small to medium business owners.
The class warfare began during the Regan administration under the false doctrine known as trickle-down economics. It continued with the out-sourcing of jobs after NAFTA was passed, and continued under the Bush administration during the deregulation frenzy and granting of tax-breaks for countries to outsource good paying manufacturing jobs. Republicans don’t like the concept of “class warfare” because it is a losing issue for them.
The giant sucking sound as Ross Perot said.
James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter
I know or know of plenty of middle class people who hire and expand their businesses if possible. Do you really think it’s only the “upper class” who do that?
Whom do you think are the largest contributors to Obama? The Hollywood actors, bankers, lawyers, huge corporations, foreign nations and other we know not about. Come on—-for the middle class???????????????????????????????????
Who do you think are the largest contributors to any politician, irrespective of party?
The same.
Exactly. Unfortunately, we have made it necessary to have it necessary for Presidential candidates have to raise millions.
And who do you think the biggfest contributors are to the Rs. Big business, the Kochs, etc.
Like he stuck
by Rev. Wright??????
You are so wrong! Oh by the way other than going to Harvard and being a politician Obama has not worked a day in his life! And when your taxes skyrocket on January 1, 2013 don’t want to here you complaining!
The tax cuts should remain in place for everyone. Of particular note is the inheritance tax. If the tax cuts are changed one million seems like a lot to exempt unless you are inheriting the farm—remember that the inheritance includes the property. Before the Bush tax cuts, many family farms had to be sold off to pay the taxes. Let’s not get back to that again. No one should pay anything on an inheritance. It is allowing the government to take money that the deceased has already paid the taxes on. Once I pay taxes on it, the government needs to keep its hands off of my estate. Let the government live within its means. I am against going back to pre–Bush tax cuts for anyone, even the millionaires! Allow the money to stay in the economy and to be invested. Only investing in this country will we save it.
Then pass these things on during your lifetime. Why would you operate something like that into old age anyway?
Family farms are exempted from the inheritance tax. Have been for years.
Small businesses are not exempt and in 2013 the estate taxes are slated to rise again.
Let’s replace “family farms” with small businesses. The small business inheritance taxes are going up in 2013. The first million is exempt, but then it is 55%. What small business only has one million invested in it. Think of the equipment, etc. Many businessmen will not continue to build thier businesses if the family is always scrambling to figure out how to keep it going. Read some of the business news. Inheritance taxes have gone from one set of parameters to another within a couple of years. It is always changing depending on the greed of the government.
Absolutely wrong. There is no evidence of anyone losing their farm because of the Inheritance Tax. Selling the farm to profit from the sale but not because of the tax.
On Edit.
The Rich are NOT investing in America with their tax cuts. They are either investing in China or gambling with the extra money in futures or derivatives. Now if they have more money taken out in taxes maybe they will start to invest in America to take advantage of tax breaks.
Small business owners have the difficult task of figuring out how to transfer businesses due to the fact that these inheritance tax laws change over and over again. In 2013, the small business inheritance tax is slated to rise again. The heirs can shelter one million and must then pay 55% on the rest. How then can they keep the business going?
“…and $5,000,000 or more for decedent’s dying in 2010 or later ”
That is the amount of estate value that is tax exempt as of 2010.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164871,00.html
“Thanks to the generous $5.12 million exemption for individuals who pass away in
2012, the assets of relatively few people in the United States will be exposed
to the federal estate tax over the next few years”
http://www.smartmoney.com/calculator/estate-planning/estate-tax-calculator-1304463115650/
“…However, in 2011, the federal estate tax rate is scheduled to start at 37 percent and increase to a maximum of 55 percent…”
http://www.ehow.com/about_6696275_inheritance-tax-rate_.html?ref=Track2&utm_source=ask
These tax cuts have been in place for how many years? And, how have they helped? That argument does not stand up to scrutiny. If it were true we would not be in the mess we are in. It does not work.
What Family Farms are you talking about? No Family Farm in Maine is worth the money you are talking about, only the corporate Farms are worth that kind of money.
Maine is one state. Go west——go south—there still are family farms and worth a lot of money.
This was in reply to TrainguyJim.
Not really—it is not that clear of a line. Obama wants to remove money from the pockets of one so the government can nanny state it wherever it wants. He just loves the class warfare. The wealthy invest the money in this country’s businesses even if that is via investment in stock. Obama just wants to spend it on programs that we don’t need. Any time the government tries to run a business it fails.
Over the decades the income tax rate for the top earners has gone down from 90% to 36%. Please explain how this is class warfare.
And the wealthy are NOT investing money in this country’s businesses because they know that the middle class doesn’t have the disposable income to spend on their services.
The wealthy certainly invest in Maine each time they purchase a big yacht, pay their realty taxes, hire local people for work building homes or fixing homes or taking care of their homes. You just can’t allow anyone to be lucky enough to inherit or lucky enough to have been able to work hard and build a business. Obama is wrong about the government building businesses—he is out of touch with the realty of real work since he never did any. Look at his record. Do you see anything that he did to build a business?
No one should pay 90% of income to the government. That means you are working to give money away to someone else who will then spend it on programs that do not work. When the government gets the money, it is given in a way that the expense/bureaucracy of the programs for which it is spent, gets the biggest slice of the pie. The program gets peanuts and does absolutely no good.
Tell that to the “golden era” of the 1950s.
The marginal rate was that high…the effective rate on the rich was never that high.
Obama “has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
The headline to this story is completely wrong:
Sen. Susan Collins in fact voted against the bill (S. 3412) along with all of her Republican colleagues (Vote Number 184). S. 3412 will extend the Bush era tax cuts to all Americans excepting those that earn more than $250,000. The tax rates for those folks will return to the level that was in place in when Bush took office in 2001.
Collins did vote against a GOP proposal to extend the Bush era tax cuts to everyone, including those making more than $250,000. That amendment, as noted in the article, failed.
She voted AGAINST the AMENDMENT, which would have extended cuts to ALL. The article is correct in that she voted with the Dems to forestall the change to the previously passed Bill. Just sayin’
Read the headline again.
Yep, punishing success in America, it is the Obama way. To heck with decreasing spending, just tax more. He wants welfare recipients to NOT have to look for work as a condition of receiving their welfare check, but the “rich” have to pay their fair share. Raising taxes on ANYBODY in this economy?………disaster.
Gee, just as long as he doesn’t engage in class warfare. We can’t take 4 more years of this nightmare.
Mitt and friends can afford to pay their fair share. It’s the rest of us who need a break.
They do pay their fair share. Why do you believe that the millions they pay and the millions they give to charities does not constitute their fair share. More that 50% of Americans pay no taxes and manage to get tax credits for refunds—that seems like not paying their fair share.
Pay no income taxes.
They still pay gas taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes… etc. And many of that number are elderly people on fixed incomes who paid in all their lives, or kids who don’t work enough hours to owe anything. Income taxes on the rich are lower than they’ve been since the 1920s, and it seems like people have forgotten the result of those low tax rates.
People who don’t pay income tax are usually people in poverty. People in poverty already can’t afford to live.
I believe you knew I was speaking of federal income tax. But, I do agree that everyone is taxed on just about everything. Every license fee is a tax whether it be to drive or to build a shed. Why not go to a flat tax for everyone—we would all pay the same per cent in federal income taxes regardless of income. The flat tax would not allow any exemptions or tax credits—therefore, no loopholes and would give a specific tax on earned income and a lower rate on dividends and interest due to the fact that investment income comes with risk.
The reason we shouldn’t have a flat tax is because not everyone can afford to pay income taxes, which is the very reason not everyone does. Flat taxes were always offered up as policy by wealthy people like Steve Forbes who knew that such a tax would put more of their money in their pockets and take more of it from the middle class.
Scaled taxation is designed to be fair to those who can pay and those who cannot. We built a strong middle class in the 1950s under a much higher tax bracket for the wealthy. Restoring 1990-era tax policy for the wealthy is not a huge step and I really don’t understand why it gets people upset enough to scream “class warfare”, which is how this thread got started.
A flat tax is a fair tax. Graduated taxes tend to punish those who have worked hard to earn more.
Unless they take over 100%, a higher rate is not punishment. You could argue that a higher rate is a disincentive, but certainly if I had a shot to make $1 million and pay 35% or make 2 million and pay 39%, it wouldn’t be a hard choice which one I’d rather do. I’ve never heard of a millionaire wanting to make less money so they’d pay less in taxes.
You really do not understand my point at all.If there is so little change for the rich, then why are the democrats so hell bent on upping the taxes? You do realize that it is never about the percentage, don’t you?
I understand it just fine. Again, when have you ever heard of a rich person saying, “No thank you, I’d rather make only 1 million in income this year because my taxes go up on the second million”? Never. At best, you hear of them taking stock options instead, so they can pay the even lower capital-gains rate. Not exactly a dodge you can take if you are not part of the investor class.
The change of 4% varies in impact based on how much you make. If you’re making billions, you’re paying millions more. No major loss. If you are making thousands and start paying hundreds more, that lost is much more real and significant, even if the tax is flat and supposedly “fair”. $400 to someone making $25,000 is a huge deal. Less $4,000 on $250,000. And way less on $40,000 on $2.5 million. The percentage never changes but the impact certainly does. One means living without that fifth car, the other, living without a tank and a half of heating oil. The flat tax is anything but fair to that struggling family.
The flat tax puts everyone in the same percentage—that is fair. Penalizing people depending on their income is wrong. Why should someone pay 39% and someone else 2%. Flat tax would put everyone on a level field paying their fair share. Whatever the percentage is set at incomes of one million would pay a lot more than someone making 30,000. That is fair! Stop the tax credits, exemptions, and every single loophole for everyone. Even if you took all the actors’ money from them—it would not make a dent. Even if you took all of Buffet’s money, it would not make a dent. Stop gouging the Americans and stop the call for anger amongst the different income brackets. Learn from the European countries going under that taxing high and spending even higher does not work. Only a good work ethic works!
So stop the tax credits, and tax someone making $15,000 the same as someone making $15,000,000? That sounds fair. Until you start doing the math and realize that you can get along just fine if someone took away $3m from your 15m, but not so much if someone takes away $3,000 from your $15,000. A good work ethic doesn’t mean anything if you froze or starved to death. Anyway, I’m done here, we’re into the point of repetition.
The same percentage is FAIR. Your problem is in thinking that one person’s income is more important that another person’s income. If someone works hard to make that 15 million they are no less deserving than the one who works to earn 30,000. Those who make the big bucks work 24/7 at their jobs. Some carry their jobs with them and know that there is no time off. I begrudge no one the money they earn.
Earning more DOES NOT mean worked harder. I’d like to see some fat, old corporate CEO spend a day cleaning hotel rooms or picking fruit.
The wealthy pay far more in those same taxes too.
48% of the people in this country do NOT pay income taxes.
Those who have to spend their entire paycheck to survive pay a much larger percentage of their income in consumption taxes than those who are wealthy. So keep complaining about people who are struggling to survive on Social Security not paying any income taxes.
Unfortunately too many try to spend a lot of time citing countless sources to rebuff this talking point. All there is to say is that you want to increase taxes on people who can’t afford to eat so you can reduce taxes on those who eat caviar. That’s what a flat tax means, and it’s what you want to do in order to reduce that number. Because I sure as heck don’t hear Republicans talking about getting more people into the realm of paying income tax by raising the minimum wage.
We are not talking about the really poor. 48% of this country is not suffering from poverty and just struggling to “survive”.
At this point? With unemployment where it is, with Social Security not paying enough to live on, with the minimum wage not paying enough to afford rent? Someone making minimum wage is probably paying around 20% of their income in taxes, once you take payroll, gas, excise, personal property, and so on into account. And somewhere around a quarter of wage-earners make less than $10 an hour, which still ain’t much, and in many places still is not enough to live on (see Boston).
The minimum wage is 15,000 a year and you think they should pay more than 20% in taxes? Social Security is around the same amount of money, you want them to pay that much? Take a closer look at who you are talking about not paying any federal income taxes. You just throw around that figure because it looks big and scary without doing any analysis into why. Which I say is by choice.
(Edit: And I’m aware SS wasn’t meant to be someone’s sole income. But when someone’s 401k was tied up in a stock market that collapsed or they lost their entire pension, certainly survival became a heck of a lot more difficult.)
Social Security was never intended to be enough to “live on”. It has always been a supplemental program. Someone making minimum wage is paying zero income taxes and likely receives an earned income tax credit. The markets have gained back everything they lost in the fall of 2008.
Basically nothing you have stated is really valid.
That would be the point, thank you for validating it. Someone making minimum wage pays no income taxes and still struggles to survive. You seem to have a problem with it.
You seem to be confused. The current debate over tax policy has nothing to do with minimum wage earners since they do not pay income taxes. The solutions to their income needs are a completely different issue.
Actually someone making minimum wage qualifies for public assistance. We subsidize businesses that pay a minimum wage. They do not get by. To get by, which is a living wage, you need to make $10.18 according to our own state report, and add a few cents to that as it was based on 2010 stats.
The problem in your argument is that so much of their wealth is kept off shore- and many of them get tax credits for shipping jobs overseas.
Actually, little individual wealth is kept “off-shore” and many do not get “credits” for shipping jobs overseas. That aside, what people do with their wealth or what you do with yours is really nobody’s business but theirs or your own in your case. Why are you so interested in other people’s wealth?
Because the money we give these people is not getting back into the economy- it’s not being invested back.
1. You haven’t given anything to anybody. It is their money to begin with.
2. They are not stuffing it in a mattress.
Yes, we do give them money, every time we purchase the services of one of the companies they hold shares in.
No, they aren’t stuffing it i na mattress, they are stuffing it in a swiss bank account. Not much different.
You received goods and services in exchange for your payments so the fact is you have not given them anything.
No, the wealthy are not stuffing their wealth into Swiss bank accounts. Even if they were, what they do with their wealth after paying the taxes owed on their income is really none of your business or mine. However, what wealthy people generally do is invest their wealth in capital which in turn provides for job growth and an expanding tax base for the communities they live and invest in. You may not like the fact that many people in this country are financially successful but that is a problem of your jealousy and envy rather than any real sense of unfairness. I invest where I believe I am going to earn the best return on that investment. If that return is best in Maine or in South Carolina or even Switzerland, that is where my investment dollars are going to go. I have already paid far more in taxes on my income than you and what I do with what is left in my pocket is really none of your damn business.
Wow, you know how much of my income I pay in taxes? I see that you do indeed have all the answers!
So give us your rags to riches story so we can applaud. Getting a little testy aren’t you?
You mean the over 3 mil Mitt paid in taxes last year is not enough? ………and Obama calls the “rich” “greedy”……wow.
They have been paying their faith share and yours for years.
Unless you make a quarter of a million dollars a year, you have no reason to argue. It’s always been that the rich or “successful” as the neo cons call them have always paid more in taxes. It is only logical. Not everyone is getting handouts, there are many working 40 – 50 hr weeks not getting paid as much as they should for their hardwork and effort and can barely make ends meet. Not to mention that those same workers pay more in taxes so they don’t have the ability to become one of “the successful”.
Unless you don’t work for a business, you have no reason to argue about losing your job if it comes to that.
Gee, maybe Mitt might have to pay more than 15% on his income now.
The wealthy pay the same amount on their interest, dividends—investment income as you do—isn’t that paying a fair share?
I don’t get 90% of my wealth from sitting around the pool waiting for my dividend check to clear.
And no, I don’t think it is fair. I think that if the majority of my income or your income is from dividends then that income should be taxed at the same rate as someone’s income who actually works for their money.
Most worked for their money too. I invested money on which I paid taxes. I took the chance on that investment. Why should the government then come along and tax my good luck with the investment. What they give back when I lose is NOTHING in comparison. When they tax your interest or dividends, I bet you will be yelling foul.
My interest already gets taxed at the rate I pay while working for a living, I have to add it to my income on my 1040 because I earn less than $500 interest. I don’t make enough to put extra money into tax havens.
I doubt Mitt does considering all of his off-shoring…but of course we won’t know that because he refuses to release his taxes. He released many, many years of taxes to McCain for the VP spot…yet McCain still chose Palin. What does that tell you?
and the Kennedys? If taxes are raised in America, expect even more people finding safer havens for money.
The Kennedy’s worked to raise taxes on the rich just so they could utilize off shore tax havens?
and when that 15% is still $3 million, still not enough for the left. Nope, Obama wants the “look for work” requirement for welfare to be gone, but Mitt’s $3 mill must be bad for the country.
No, because that $3 million is not the same ‘share’ as our contribution. If my percentage is higher then I am paying at a higher tax rate and that is not fair. It is not about the dollar amount. It is about the proportion payed.
Oh, you missed that chart that shows that Obama has decreased government spending more than any of the past 4 presidents? Well, here it is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/. I like the line that says he “has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.”
How is having a 700 billion dollar bailout not spending money? You really have your facts wrong! He has spent more money and he admitted to the american people that he is spending more.
Not my facts and the bailouts were already in place, put there by Bush. Check your facts. And, no, the article if you read it says the first year were monies due to Bush carryover. But you can ‘believe’ whatever you want to believe despite facts.
The bailouts by Bush (with Obama’s approval) did not include the GM & Chrysler bailouts following the earlier loans in the fall of 2008. You need to understand the “facts” before trying to use them to your advantage or somebody else’s disadvantage.
So you are saying what I said I believe. It started with Bush and yes, then Obama followed thru. After reading a bit on the ‘Crash’ I now feel a bit differently about those bailouts. I can see how they were necessary. And, as far as who did what here is an interesting analysis that suggests the effects of economic policy seem to have a lag period: http://www.econdataus.com/empterm.html . Some good facts in there.
Momma is playing you with a sleight of hand. It’s not her fault. It is Rick Ungar’s nonsense. He is Steve Forbes’ token liberal.
Give me some analysis that says something different and takes in the corrections to your argument I noted above and then you may redeem your credibility.
The data and analysis is overwhelming. I don’t have any need to redeem any credibility with you.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010
I will study this but you are being disingenuous if you take Ungar to task and then justify with something the Heritage Foundation puts out.
No, I am not. Ungar has a long history of misrepresentation and politicizing his “data”, just as he did with your example. Please demonstrate that the information provided by the Heritage Foundation has done likewise.
By using SS and Medicare payouts in their analysis. They are not entitlements. Remove them from the analysis and the conclusions would be different. And, remove the 9,000 earmarks last year at a cost of $16.5 billion which probably were not in Obama’s budget and you get still a different picture. I think my point is one I made before. Anyone wanting to prove a point can use data to do so. And, the Heritage Foundation uses CBO information to make their points. You can’t dismiss them as unreliable and then refer to analysis that uses their information and maintain that credibility I referred to. It is also interesting to me that the article you referred me to is dated 2010. If you go to the current CBO analysis, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-analysispresidentsbudget.pdf , you get a different picture of the impact of the President’s budget. Seems he is learning, making adjustments, bringing the projections down.
Okay I read it and the data chosen do support the conclusion. That is usually the case. So I went to the CBO report, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905, and got a more balanced projection with the deficit coming down as a result of whatever budget CONGRESS passes. Granted Obama submits one, but it is Congress that is responsible for whatever is enacted. I take great offense at the Heritage Foundation’s allegations, for that is all they are, that Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs. They are not. Maybe Medicaid, but not Social Security and Medicare. I have paid for that out of every paycheck I have earned. The government has held that in reserve for me. If those taxes need to increase to cover costs for future generations then so be it. But they need to be there. I lived through the era when my parents had to pay for costs associated with my grandmother’s needs because she had neither. And, it almost broke that middle class family.
The CBO is a partisan led score keeping organization that is required to use only the projections supplied by the legislators in assessing the budget impacts of what it reviews. It does not use “real world” data and projections.
You do not pay into Social Security to build your own account. We each pay into Social Security to pay for current retirees. You earn credit for quarters worked which is used along with past earning levels to determine what future workers will provide for your retirement supplement (entitlement). There is no way to avoid the fact that both SS and Medicare are entitlement programs. If SS worked in the same manner as current 401K you would be right. It would not be considered an entitlement. However that is not the case.
That chart is a nice sleight of hand. It attributes 2009 spending to Bush rather than Obama when in fact it was The Democrat Congress and Obama who pushed through a huge stimulus bill on top of the current fiscal year appropriations. That makes it appear that it was Bush rather than Obama who was responsible for the fiscal year spending in 2009. The truth is quite the opposite.
epic fail.
Okay. Let me check that…. did you note the qualifier that said the stimulus bill was reassigned to Obama?…. and he still comes out ahead. And the author notes what I have seen elsewhere. That the budget a President starts with is the one left by the preceding administration. I do not think there is any blame to be laid except at the feet of those who fail to read carefully. Of which I have been guilty. Do you another analysis I could look at that would contest these findings?
The author has played you like a fool. Have you checked his analysis or are you running with whatever you could find on the internet in an attempt to make Obama look good. I do not need to establish my credibility with you.
Did you read the analysis I posted in another comment? If you depend only on what the Heritage Foundation reports your analysis is fairly limited. I do try to use edu sites for the most part. But I do think we can agree on one thing: most reporting of data is a spin to prove a point. I really do prefer research that comes to a conclusion based on the question. Which of course is problematic too, as the question often determines the results that will be found. But at least the data do not get spun…. well, not until it has been published.
I am an economist by training although not vocationally. I generally rely on source documents and not political pieces.
Nice to know but the piece you gave me is from the Heritage Foundation. Hardly a source document.
Not punishing success, but punishing the fleecing of the middle class.
It sure IS punishing success. Obama hates it and wants as many Americans as he can get to drink the Obama kool aid. I am middle class, and I don’t feel fleeced by the wealthy. The fleecing is going on with the 19 and 20 year olds who are allowed to do nothing but have kids, get mainecare and the countless other benefits. They do ZERO and live as well as many who work full time. THAT is fleecing.
Most of them don’t, but, probably some are. The President, who is probably wealthy himself, and will become even more so after his term is completed in 2016, doesn’t hate success. That sound like something Rush would say, which means it’s stupid and reactionary.
Neocon talking points ho!!! Amazing.
lets go back to the tax rates under Ronald Regan (they would be higher than they are now)
I agree, funny how that was ok under a republican, but under Obama it’s considered “class warfare.” The reality is that the middle class aren’t the ones putting their money in tax shelters or hiding it from taxes by sending it to a bank across the ocean.
It kills me that I paid a higher percentage of income tax last year than Romney, and I didn’t make even close to what he made.
If you invest your after tax income and earn a return, you will be taxed just like Romney who invested his after tax income and earned a capital gain. Are you in favor of increasing the taxes paid by retires who draw from their investment retirement funds (which are now taxed at a lower capital gain rate)?
OK, lets also go back to the spending under Reagan.
This isn’t over yet the bill still has to go back to the house. That will be after the election.
And which party do you think will make sure the wealthiest no longer get to have it their way?
After the election is an interesting statement, didn’t Obama quietly, thinking he was off the microphone, promise Putin something but said he could not get into it until after the election. Why? Was it something he would promise that even his most ardent supporters would find distasteful.
Just got of the Sen. site and guess what—the BDN got it wrong! Collins voted with the “Rs” —“A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief to middle-class families”. I think that a “NAY” means that she is looking for “BIG BUCKS” for her war chest. Maybe for the S.W. Collinsas well. I wonder if Irving will help her out after S.W. bought all that lumber for Afagan rebuilding. Politics is even dirty in Nothern maine—–
Under the Republican plan, certain tax breaks for middle- and lower-income earners that were first approved as part of Obama’s economic recovery program in 2009 would be dropped. Republicans say those breaks for college costs and tax refunds for the working poor have not helped to stimulate the economy, and should be discontinued.
Those making OVER 250k can’t possibly have their tax breaks allowed to expire, but middle and low income tax breaks need to be discontinued? How can these people even keep a straight face when they use terms like “shared sacrifice”?
The “working poor” don’t pay income taxes at all.
It’s what their wealthy donors want them to say.
Dang. See what happens when a Republican is elected who hasn’t signed the Grover Norquist pledge?
Scott Brown has at least shown some intestinal fortitude by going against his pledge to Grover Norquist.
It should be noted that while the House plan extends all Bush era tax cuts, it doesn’t renew the tax credits that benefit the middle and working class. That means, the Republican plan raises taxes on the vast vast majority of Americans, while the Senate plan does so for only 2% of Americans.
What tax credits would not be “renewed”?
I’m not an economics expert, so this
confuses me: how is that the Bush tax cuts were made to encourage
investment and consequently more jobs, right, but where is that
investment and where are those jobs? Tax rates are at record
lows, am I right, RECORD LOWS. And they have been this RECORD
LOW for TEN YEARS. Where are the jobs? If I hadn’t had a
job for 10 years, would you say I needed lower taxes? But, if I
was a millionare and hadn’t created a job in the last 10 years,
people would say I need lower taxes. I don’t get it. Why
do people think that lower taxes will create jobs, when RECORD LOW
tax rates haven’t. The funny thing is, look at the job
creation when the tax rate on the rich was 90%. Do we want that
level of job creation again? Seems like we don’t. And how
is Obama such a bad guy for wanting to return tax rates to levels of
an time when the economy did so well, the 1990’s, to what, 4
percentage points higher? And it’s going to save 1 trillion
dollars over the next decade. What do people want, no taxes on
the rich? Can anyone show me a time when minimal to zero taxes
on the rich helped the economy, because from what I’ve seen, only
higher taxes have helped.
If taking 100% of the result of labor is slavery, what percent is not?
Funny how you only imply it’s slavery when a certain somebody is in the White House, but with Republicans who served with similar or even higher tax rates? Not quite as vocal.
Throwing the race card are you?
Paranoid much?
Not at all. You?
So you believe the only way you can be free is if you pay no taxes?
The lower taxes did create jobs as did lower capital gains taxes. They also increased revenues to the Federal government. The very wealthy were paying nothing in taxes when the rate was 90%. They sheltered all of it. It was not until Reagan lower the top marginal rates that the wealthy began paying more in taxes. He eliminated a lot of tax shelters and spurred investments that produced large gains. This is basic economic reality (at least among sane economists).
Good job, give the Government MORE money. They will wast it on something other than what IS needed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Like another trillion-dollar war in hte middle east?
———————————
Obama 2012
Only to let the Government give away another trillion to China. Think about it, one trillion seconds ago was about 32,000 years. This Government has about $26 trillion in unfunded debt.
////\\
They are already paying your share.
……
You don’t have a revolving line of credit as a business? That is too bad. You should try to establish one. It makes funding daily business activities far more manageable. It remains that the top 10% are carrying you. The only way to avoid that truth is to advocate for a fair or flat percentage tax.
The $Trillion number is about the most irresponsible thing to say since liberal monkeys are willing to believe it.
Clarify the phrase “punishing success.” Going back to 39% is not punishing. It is restoring the rate to what it was when Bush II took office. In other words, it is a return to what had been viewed as acceptable at that time & possibly for decades prior. But, Obama & the Democrats returning to this rate is “socialism” or “class warfare” or “disaster” or an aim of the administration for folks on welfare not to have to work? Please, look at your argument beyond regurgitated conservative talking points.
Also, look at some history. The so-called peak of American manufacturing, quality of life, employment during the 1950s to 1970s existed in conjunction with much higher tax rates on the wealthiest in our society. Yet, somehow lower tax rates than then right now is socialist? And Obama is destroying our country? Stop with all the Chicken Little nonsense.
The 70’s, such glorious days. Interest rates of about 23%. Great, long lasting cars coming from Detroit (remember the Gremlin?).
The glory days of the 1990’s when 23 million jobs were created and the tax rate on the rich was at 39%.
Clinton agreed to the Republican Congress effort to reduce capital gains taxes. It was the best thing has did.
Don’t forget you got to wait in line for hours to get gas if it was your day to get gas!
I love this chart: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=458192360858414&set=a.115969958413991.17486.114517875225866&type=1&theater
There is no tax cut here. There is only a tax INCREASE when these current rates expire after being extended with the blessing of the current president. As a matter of fact he himeself said that it is no time to increase taxes in the middle of a recession when blessing that extension. So here we are much, much deeper in a recession and now some want to increase taxes. Tax hikes before spending cuts? NO!
When Reagan reduced the highest marginal tax rates, the tax receipts from the wealthy soared because people could then invest in profitable ventures that offered high returns without confiscatory tax rates. Investment spurs revenues. It is a basic economic reality. Clinton saw the same thing as did Bush when when capital gains taxes were reduced to current levels.
Income taxes on the highest earners and capital gains are at or near historic lows. Still not trickling down and they’re still complaining.
“Trickle down” is an idiots buzzword phrase. The tax rate reductions of the Bush administration were across the board among all citizens.
For your education:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Whether we like it or not, both political parties crave crontrol of a socialist new world order. To not understand that is unforunate to the degree that lack of knowlaedge leads to a poor voting record. We must decide which candidate will help middle class America to survive the coming transition. Get used to it, our sovereighty is going to evaporate regardless of which party is in control. History proves that. Get smart, put your old political thinking in the trash can and start asking the tough questions. Our future depends on it.
Class warfare, punishing success, Obama against the American people, taxing the family farm. Our posters copy Rush’s drivel sure that it will convince people that any of these things are true. Bush came into office with the deficit showing major signs of coming under control. He did nothing about the tough spending issues (oh, yeah. he did champion privatizing Social Security to give his Wall Street buddies a “much needed” boost), but eagerly cut revenues (with the vast majority going to those who needed it the least) and increasing spending (starting two unfunded wars). Are the liberal politicians blameless? NO! They jumped on the tax cuts, refused to deal with the tough entitlement spending, and signed on to the impulsive 9/11 response. So both sides have plenty of blame, but guess what? – until both sides (meaning the American people) are willing to tackle the tough spending issues, we need to increase revenue and that means that at the very least, the tax giveaways to the most well-off have to end.
Good post. This extreme dichotmony that has been happenig is what is going to ruin this country. If we are going to get back on top then as a nation we need to actually work together instead of just calling each other names and going against something just because a certain party brought it up. Politics is such a stupid game, if I thought of it it’s a great idea, if you thought of the same thing, then it’s horrible.
The reality is that everybody uses something that it paid for by taxes, so we should all pay our share. And if the uber-rich don’t like it, then I will gladly swap my pay for theirs so they can have a lower tax rate….though lately this doesn’t seem to be reality as I paid more than Romney’s 15% tax rate last year!
It’s easier to buy into someone’s drivel than to find out the truth. Well put.
And the tax hike to those earning over 250,000.00 will fund the government for approx 8 days what about the other 357?
Those remaining 357 days will result in incurring additional outlays for the increase in unemployed as a result increasing the tax burden on small and medium sized businesses.
Thanks, Sen. Collins for standing up!
It is about time that she voted the interests of her constituents and not the interests of her PARTY.
Her party is the party of the rich and famous, not of the American People.
Wrong. People who work need a conservative philosophy. Taxing and spending is the way of the Democrats of today. Your money goes into huge government programs which are mismanaged money hungry bureaucracies. Tax and spend is what put Greece and other European countries in the red with no way out. Only the dictatorial rule of China seems to be able to make ends meet on the backs of workers earning virtually nothing. Do you support China’s socialist agenda? Or the socialist programs which are breaking the countries of Europe? If you keep taking and giving—eventually there is no one able to pay to keep it going. Taxing the wealthy will only add to the financial problems of this country. Obama and the democrats love the class warfare. He speaks of stopping funding for programs that he knows will continue, yet, he loves to spout off to frighten the seniors and the military. He promises free educations and citizenship without waiting in line to garner votes without thinking of who gets to pay for all his promises.
Name one person or corporation that has used the tax cuts to create a job!
How did net revenues increase after the tax cuts were cycled into the economy?
What you fail to understand is that both parties absolutely “tax and spend”, its just their pet programs that differ. Under republicans we waste tons on unnecessary and ineffective defense programs and projects, under democrats its social programs. And both sides give a hefty amount to corporate welfare. When exactly have your taxes EVER really gone down?
They went down during the first Bush administration. They will go up if the socialists have their way. My response will be to lay off as many workers as it takes to cover the additional cost (hopefully just one). However, you can bet that the person(s) laid off will be progressive liberal. Let them pay the price for this theft.
untrue – your taxes have never been lower–
In pursuit of a reality check, take a look at this quote: “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.”
That might sound straight out of President Barack Obama “Buffett Tax” playbook — which conservatives routinely attack as “class warfare” — but in fact it is the sainted Reagan speaking in 1985
You are making my argument for me. Reagan dramatically lowered marginal tax rates while closing loopholes resulting in much higher revenues, higher investments and the wealthy actually paid a lot more than they were paying before. The socialists are not discussing the increase of tax rates while offering “loopholes”. They are rather insisting on just taking more. The reason Reagan could lower rates like that and enjoy a great prosperity to boot is because he knew as do all sane economists today that lowing tax rates spurs capital investment. That results in the successful paying more absolute dollars in taxes while gaining significantly more from investments. Why do you think 401K plans gained and performed so well all the way through the 1990s?
Democrats will kill your future and your children’s futures.
If lowering tax rates spurs the economy, what has been happening over the glorious last ten years?
Perhaps you could learn to use real data for a change.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
I don’t see anywhere that your “real data” addresses jobs or wages in relation to tax rates.
Maybe yours did…. I’m not so sure about mine.
You can howl about spending all you like, but each party has its pet projects. We can have a trillion-dollar war that achieves no peace, provides no security, does not bolster the economy, sends back thousands of our citizens physically and psychologically disabled, and removed the breadwinner from thousands of our families.
Or, we can spend the same on socialized healthcare, helping people be more productive members of the economy.
Its a no-brainer to me… that it, you’d have to have no brain to prefer the former.
Everybody’s federal income taxes went down during the Bush administration.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Just because gross receipts went down doesn’t mean tax reductions were distributed evenly.
OK, so you are anti-business. What next?
Just sent an email thanking Senator Collins. That was courageous of her.
Those tax cuts have had ten years to produce jobs by “trickle down” — the sound you hear is the toilet flushing . . .
I’m thinking Abbyisgod that President Obama can’t destroy America all by himself now can he. He will get help from Congress as sure as I’m setting here. I don’t understand the rhetoric that runs thru the minds of the blindly motivated political folks that are not willing to lay blame where blame is due. Congress has just as much power as any seated president and so does the judicial arm of the government. The three have equal power. One can not destroy anything with out the others help. I believe that all three powers have done a bang up job throwing the American public under the bus, so to speak. Remember now they answer to us and if we are not happy with whats going on in Washington we have only ourselves to blame.
Shame on Sue Collins. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Haven’t you figured that out yet?
One more reason why we need to send Charlie Summers to DC. He would never vote for such class warfare nonsense.
Bumper sticker slogans are no way to run a country.
If the Democratic plan constitutes class warfare, then what does the Republican plan constitute? After all, the one that passed the House gets rid of the credits that help those in school and in the middle class. Or is it only “class warfare” when it’s the wealth not getting treats from the government?
We absolutely do have a revenue problem.. We’re not going to reduce the deficit unless we do a better job spending, while at the same time increasing revenue.
What? The US Senate did something for the peasantry? Election years do have their pluses, what?
The middle class has woken up. They are seeing
how this govt is taking money from them and
redistributing it to those in the recipient class who
do nothing but take. The middle class knows the problem
is not the so-called rich because those in the middle class
aspire to become rich themselves by hard work and not
leeching off others. The middle class is not duped by thinking
taxing ANYONE more will stop these thieves and marxists in
DC from spending what they don’t have. The middle class understands
that taking from the rich will soon come down to taking from them as well.
The takers then will expect to be given more because they feel it
now is their RIGHT to be given more at the expense of others. The
middle class would rather see tax reform instead of a phoney tax
argument. They also understand that no matter how much ANYONE
is taxed it will never come close to what these community organizers
and most who have never held a job redistribute. Yep, the middle
class has awoken and aren’t mindless sheep. BS doesn’t fool them.
Nothing will change until we clean house.
Under this law EVERYONE gets a tax cut on their first $200,000. Painting this as a purely middle-class tax cut is specious at best.
Guess who isn’t up for re-election this year? You’re true colors are showing and you are definitely a RINO!!
White Rhino.
I MISS YOU RON REAGAN
Would that be the Ron Reagan that increased our debt by more than all the previous presidents combined?
Yes that would be him and your right Reagan did spend more than all previous before him… Now Obama has the new title and is the one who has spent more than all United States Presidents combined in the time he has been in office, how SAD is that…I miss Ronald Reagan!
35% is already enough. It’s not their fault the government pisses it away.
The more I think about this ridiculous article the more irritated I become. It’s really nothing more than a send up for Scott Brown, and I surprised that the <i<BDN has chosen to carry it.
Think of the scenario:
The Bush era tax cuts were supposed to automatically repeal at the end of 2010. This was by design – no different than how a sale works at a grocery store. That year, Congress voted to put off the repeal date by two years, until the end of this year.
The bill originally before the Senate (S. 3412) would have further put off that automatic repeal, but only for 98% of Americans – those having an adjusted income of more than $250,000 would see their tax rate revert to what it was when Bush took office in 2001.
Senate Republicans offered and amendment that would extend the tax cuts to ALL Americans, including the very wealthy 2%. It is this amendment that Sens. Collins and Brown voted against. Thus the bill remained unchanged.
The very next Senate vote was for the original version, the one that would extend the tax cuts to 98% of Americans. Sens. Collins and Brown voted against this bill, that is:
AGAINST extending tax cuts to Americans who earn less than $250,000.
The headline for this article is WRONG.
Once again the sisters of Maine, and the centerfold kid vote against their own party as a bloc. They might as well have just changed party affiliation , they vote with the Communist enough.
As a Republican, I cringe whenever their names are spoken, right along with McLame, the
Hobbit hunter. The Tea Party, has to overtake the Republican Party soon, as dealing with our
elected representatives is testing the patients of the truly committed. Voting with the
Communists is not something patriots do, and frankly, I,m quite sick of it.
If this is how you truly feel, then you are one of the reasons why the Republican Party is getting such a bad image.
This is another scam perpetrated by Suzie-Q on her Maine constituents.
She knows darn well that this bill will never become law – she only voted for it to “prove” she was on the side of middle and low income taxpayers.
She is not.
And we are not fooled.
She voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy time and time again and blocked previous attempts to repeal them.
Make no mistake – if this was a bill that would *really* repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich, she would vote against it.
Just like she always has…
Yessah
Do what’s right, not what will get you re-elected. I think Ms Collins did what was right.
It may be time we consider replacing Susan next time around. She seems she has a tendency to back the democrats more than she stands by her our party.
Well at least two Republicans crossed party lines to vote the right way. What happened to Sen. Snow? I thought the reason she gave she was leaving the Senate was because it was too partisan but I see she still voted with her rich friends in keeping the tax cuts for the rich. I for one am glad she’s leaving. She is to two-faced for me.
Hooray for Senator Collins. Party affiliation is not as important as your vote for, what is the right thing to do. A measure of a person credibility. Skip the party crap and vote for what is best for America.
Scott Brown and Susan Collins joining with the other side again? Thought a previous article stated that she did not believe a year’s tax cut extension was enough!
Commutalism is structured to provide the necessary goods for the survival of everyone and introduces at the same time a new transparent form of Capitalism to trade all those goods which are not necessary, like in a market open to the competition of all superfluous goods
For the sake of transparency, this new type of Capitalism would rule that each single transaction must be reported on the Net to become visible by anyone (just like an invoice made public) and taxable at the origin with a fix percentage for everyone.
In such system, all private properties and their owners like also all money transactions and trades of private property must be publicly reported on the Net. This is to prevent unlawful transactions and root out corruption through the immediate confiscation of those goods that have not been reported.
Moreover, to reduce Greed and restore the financial equilibrium worldwide, it will be enough to eliminate the concept of inheritance. The private property of the people will return to the State after the death of each person to be auctioned among all citizens. People could spend as much as they want to educate their children but inheritance and donations would not be allowed.
Once the survival is guaranteed for everybody there will be no need to be as tolerant with crime as we are today when the crime is a consequence of our corrupted system.
In Commutalism, the right to own must be protected and guaranteed also for those who want to work and trade their own Time to obtain more than just the basic necessities provided by the system.
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Commutalism
http://www.wavevolution.org
Another safe vote. She has done this before
knowing it is dead in the water. The one thing
I don’t like about her.