Bachmann, McCollum oppose Obama tax plan

“This is a deal that will continue to explode the deficit while the rich get richer and struggling middle-class families get crumbs,” said McCollum, who says she’ll cast a no vote.

Betty’s an idiot. Middleclass families would have otherwise opened their pay envelopes in January to find their pay had been cut by 2-3% because of the increase in their taxes. They would prefer you vote against the tax INCREASE, Betty.

Keith Ellison is a moron. He said “We call on our Congressional leaders in the House and Senate to hold firm on passing a middle class tax cut with no strings attached.”

Hey Keith – there is no middleclass tax cut. There’s either going to be a tax increase or the tax rates will remain the same. Have someone read your email to you, ok?

Actually, Micky is an idiot because continuing the tax cuts will hurt the deficit more than continuing unemployment benefits. I know such logic is beyond a tax consultant, I mean lawer, but we can expect little else from a woman so out of touch with reality.

You, Dennis, also seem to have reasoning difficulties as we are discussing the expiration of so-called (wink wink) temporary tax CUTS. You can’t accept the Bush trick for getting around the law of of calling them temporary tax cuts then, but calling them tax increases now. By any logic, the Republicans are revealed to be paper tigers about how bad deficits are (as if we need any more evidence than their record on creating record deficits).

I have not yet heard how anything in this package of tax cuts, stimulus spending, and incentives is going to be paid for.

We have ten years of experience telling us that the tax cuts for the rich do more harm than good. When confronted with this simple fact, Mitch McConnell asked us to imagine what the economy would be like if the tax cut had not been in place. We do not need to imagine, we need only look to the greater job creation and economic expansion of the Clinton era.

The Bush tax cuts for the rich will continue to weaken the economy as long as they are in place. Making them permanent would be fiscal suicide.

Unsurprisingly, Bachmann misrepresents the unemployment extension. The individual limit will continue to be 99 weeks. It is the program that is extended for another 13 months. Nobody is going to get 3 years of unemployment, as Bachmann tries to suggest.

The purpose of taxation is to raise funds for the operation of government not as a means of installing social order or equalizing wealth. It’s instructive, for example, that when the old soviet union decided to give up on Marxism and embrace capitalism, one of the first things they did was institute a flat tax. Or that Japan seeking foreign investment to re-start their economy cut corporate tax rates to zero percent.

“Tax cuts for the rich” or “middleclass tax cuts” are devices used by democrat politicians to buy support from the rubes who believe that the role of government is to equalize society. Progressive taxation, or taxation using graduated rates, is a Marxist principle (it’s the 2nd of 10 demands in the manifesto) and has no place in a free society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Fear-mongering citing *gasp* communism is so 50s. Yawn.

Dennis seems to not acknowledge the ugly realities of ongoing federal deficits and the need to borrow more money from China to finance these deficits, the still-growing national debt, the still-yet-to-be-proven ax about the rich using its wealth to create jobs here in the good ol’ United States versus removing a large chunk of working capital from our economy to engage in speculative bubbles (a result of too many dollars chasing limited opportunities) and the concept of progressive taxation based on one’s ability to shoulder the tax burden.

These economic facts are true regardless of ideology.

‘Twould be nice if Dennis can stop his fear-mongering, and start being part of the solution whatever that might be that works for ALL of us.

Sheesh.

“… and the concept of progressive taxation based on one’s ability to shoulder the tax burden.”
- Lane

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
- K. Marx

Lane, a solution that “works for all of us” would be a fair tax system where everyone paid the same rate or even the same fee for workings of government the same way we all pay the same for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. If graduated rates are such a logical and fair idea, why isn’t everything else in society priced that way?

George Bush bragged when he removed the bottom 20% of wage earners from the tax roles. It’s not fair or even a good idea that some people have no skin in the game while others have more than most. Everyone should pay something or those who don’t have no investment in the system and are unaffected when tax rates rise or fall.

A FAIR tax system would be one where everyone paid the same % of their earnings just like they do in the old soviet union.

Yawn.

Government does not operate on the same level as that of the free marketplace that delivers products such as that loaf of bread or that gallon of gas. Additionally, “some people [who] have no skin in the game” and “those who don’t have no investment in the system” include children, people with disabilities or terminal illnesses that prevent them from working, the elderly as well as those who are not currently employed or who are pursuing higher education.

Dennis’ arguments (recycled talking points really) do not lend themselves towards possible resolution of those real world issues that I mentioned.

I also am very, very disappointed that our “fierce advocate” and his administration has resorted to fear-mongering by threatening that the loss of millions of jobs and the double-dip recession will happen if “the compromise” is not passed. We’ve allowed the wealthiest 2% to gain control of half of our nation’s wealth by borrowing trillions from overseas to finance that accumulation at our cost – and yet where are those jobs on our soil? Bah.

> The purpose of taxation is to raise funds for the operation of government not as a means of installing social order or equalizing wealth.

The problem with this statement is that we are NOT raising enough funds for the operation of government. Government exists to ensure social order. As for equalizing wealth, that’s laughable given that the wealthiest are having no problems gaining control of more and more of the nation’s wealth at ever-escalating rates. Again bah.