News: FYI:  We have three websites in our inventory: onnidan.com - news, recaps, blogs, black college sports page | onnidan1.com - this forum  | onnidan2.com - composite hbcu football schedule

Author Topic: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed  (Read 2410 times)

Offline NovaSkegee

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,707
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Assistant Coach
    • View Profile
House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« on: December 09, 2010, 01:17:22 PM »
Thursday December 09, 2010

House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed

By Charles Babington And Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – House Democrats voted Thursday to reject President Barack Obama's tax deal with Republicans in its current form, but it was unclear how significantly the package might need to be changed.

By voice vote in a closed caucus meeting, Democrats passed a resolution saying the tax package should not come to the House floor for consideration as written, even though no formal House bill has been drafted. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced the resolution.

Said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas: "If it's take it or leave it, we'll leave it."

The vote will at least temporarily stall what had seemed to be a grudging Democratic movement toward the tax package.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that House Democrats share Obama's "commitment to providing the middle class with a tax cut to grow the economy and create jobs." She noted that a House-passed bill, which Republicans blocked in the Senate, did not include "a bonus tax cut to millionaires and billionaires."

"We will continue discussions with the president and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote," the California Democrat said.

The voice vote in the caucus was quite lopsided. Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada told reporters afterward that "one person voted against it. That would be me."

Asked what happens next, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 person in the Democratic leadership, said, "I don't know."

Speaking earlier Thursday at a White House event promoting American exports, Obama said the vote will determine whether the economy "moves forward or backward."

The president again pressed Congress to pass the agreement, saying it has the potential to create millions of jobs. He said if it fails, Americans would see smaller paychecks and fewer jobs.

But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said "the jury is still out" on the measure's enactment because many Democrats are furious over an estate tax provision.

Obama agreed to exempt the first $5 million of a deceased person's estate, and to tax the rest at 35 percent. Congressional Democrats had expected a 45 percent tax rate on anything above $3.5 million. Without congressional action, the estate tax will revert to an even higher rate: 55 percent on estates valued above $1 million. That should have strengthened Obama's hand when negotiating with Republicans, Van Hollen said.

Some Democrats have reluctantly embraced the tax package, which would let rich and poor Americans keep Bush-era tax cuts that were scheduled to expire this month. Even so, 54 House Democrats wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying they're opposing the deal.

Led by Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, they said they were against "acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires."

"We're paying a king's ransom," Welch said in an interview. "We didn't need to and couldn't afford to."

The 54 Democrats, by themselves, would not be enough to block the package in the House, depending on how much support it gets from Republicans.

After Obama publicly defended the plan for a third day Wednesday, and Vice President Joe Biden met with Democratic lawmakers in the Capitol for a second day, several Democrats predicted the measure will pass, mainly because of extensive Republican support.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., predicted the tax cut compromise "will be passed by virtually all the Republicans and a minority of Democrats." He said he would vote against it.

Obama said more congressional Democrats would climb aboard as they studied details of the $900 billion year-end measure.

Raising the direst alarm yet, his administration warned fellow Democrats on Wednesday that if they defeat the plan, they could jolt the nation back into recession.

Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters that if the measure isn't passed soon, it will "materially increase the risk the economy would stall out and we would have a double-dip" recession. That put the White House in the unusual position of warning its own party's lawmakers they could be to blame for calamitous consequences if they go against the president.

With many House and Senate Republicans signaling their approval of the tax cut plan, the White House's comments were aimed mainly at House Democrats who feel Obama went too far in yielding to Republicans' demands for continued income tax cuts and lower estate taxes for the wealthy.

Obama says the compromise was necessary because Republicans were prepared to let everyone's taxes rise and to block the extension of unemployment benefits for jobless Americans if they didn't get much of what they wanted.

Economists say the recent recession officially ended in June 2009. But with unemployment at 9.8 percent, millions remain out of work or fearful of losing ground economically, and the notion of the nation falling back into a recession would strike many as chilling. It also could rattle markets and investors.

The deal Obama crafted with Senate Republican leaders would prevent the scheduled Dec. 31 expiration of all the Bush administration's tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, even though Obama had often promised to end the cuts for the highest earners.

House Democrats, who will lose their majority in January, still hold a 255-179 edge in the current Congress. To pass a big bill with mostly Republican votes would mark a dramatic departure from recent battles, such as the health care overhaul, which was enacted with virtually no GOP support in either chamber.

Passage of Obama's plan seems more assured in the Senate, where numerous Democrats have agreed that the president had little choice in making the compromises with Republicans. Still, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he and colleagues are considering possible changes, and action could come within days.

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,754
  • Karma: +85/-1189
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2010, 04:03:15 PM »
it looks like the democrats have no plan.  all they know is 'just say no.'
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline oldsport

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,046
  • Karma: +39/-697
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2010, 04:28:43 PM »
it looks like the democrats have no plan.  all they know is 'just say no.'

HEY BARRYDRONES AND LIBERAL/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST SYCOPHANTS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE FROM THE ARTICLE BELOW, JUST READ THE FIRST FOUR PARAGRAPH I HAVE IN BOLD PRINT. YOU DYAM IDIOTS.

While His Base Rages, Obama Faces Tax-cut Reality
by Michael Barone

12/09/2010Trackback Link

Reality strikes. Barack Obama spurned the advice of columnists Paul Krugman and Katrina vanden Heuvel and agreed with Republicans to extend the current income tax rates -- the so-called Bush tax cuts -- for another two years.
    
He got a few things in return, primarily extended unemployment benefits for another 13 months, and agreed as well to a 2 percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax.
    
But he recognized the reality that in order to prevent a tax increase on those with incomes under $250,000 he had to prevent a tax increase on those over that line, as well.  
  
This has infuriated liberal Democrats like outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but they share some of the blame themselves. They probably could have passed their version of the tax bill earlier this year, before the economic recovery stalled in the spring.
    
But with the economy faltering, there's a strong argument against raising anyone's taxes -- strong enough to have persuaded many congressional Democrats.
    
Obama had to abandon his goal of raising taxes on high earners not because Republicans opposed it but because not enough Democrats supported it. Pelosi couldn't summon up a majority on the issue back in September, and Harry Reid could get only 53 of the needed 60 votes this month.  
  
Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for extension of all the "Bush tax cuts."
    
Still, Obama in his surly statement Monday evening and his unusually brief press conference Tuesday afternoon, was at pains to attack Republicans.
    
The president who first came to national attention for expressing respect for those with whom he differed insisted that he was eager to "fight" Republicans and described them as "hostage takers," with the American people as hostages. Not much evidence of civility.
    
And he addressed most of his remarks to what last month's election revealed as a narrow segment of the nation's electorate, the Democratic base.
    
Over the years, I've noticed that politicians tend to view the whole nation through the prism of their electoral base, even when they know it's not typical. On Monday and Tuesday, Obama seemed to be aiming his remarks at the 13th state Senate district of Illinois, which he designed and which is about 60 percent black and 25 percent gentry liberal, not to the political independents who supported him and his party in 2008 and then went heavily Republican last month.
    
Thus Obama lauded the health care bill jammed through Congress by Democratic leaders and, addressing liberal complaints that it lacked a public option, said it could be expanded as Medicare was. That might mollify liberal Democrats but will repel independents, who opposed and still oppose Obamacare by wide margins.
    
Obama did argue that "tax breaks for wealthy individuals" are unpopular and would prove a political liability for Republicans in 2012. But for every poll supporting that proposition you can find another going the other way -- it all depends on how the question is worded.  
  
The strongest part of the press conference came when Obama told liberal Democrats that robust economic growth will make everything easier. That's true: Robust growth produces a boom in revenues far beyond what government statistical models predict. In 1995, Bill Clinton refused to even promise to balance the budget, but the tech boom generated enough revenue to do so a few years later.
    
But that raises the question of why the economy has been growing at such a limp rate two years into the Obama administration. The specter of higher taxes on high earners -- delayed now for two years, but still threatened by the president -- surely has done something to choke off growth.
    
So has uncertainty about the extent and cost of the administration's regulatory policies -- which are not limited by the deal on taxes. Extension of unemployment benefits, arguably good policy at a time when jobs are genuinely scarce, tends to perpetuate unemployment as the economy grows, by inducing some workers to hold out for higher-paying jobs.
    
The tax deal is certainly better for the economy than political gridlock over extending the tax cuts. How much better is uncertain.
    
But the Democratic base seems more interested in expanding government than in stimulating the economy. They are bellowing with rage not so much at Obama but at the reality that he is grudgingly acknowledging. They had their time, and now it's gone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Barone is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40464

Offline oldsport

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,046
  • Karma: +39/-697
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2010, 04:53:45 PM »
You know what the real joke is in all this Dem-O-Crap classwarfare over tax increase on those making over $250K. Most of the real filthy rich no how to get around paying taxes anyway....

YOU DYAM IDIOTS.

December 9, 2010 12:00 A.M.

Why Not Soak the Rich?
Not all of them are that wealthy, and hurting them won’t help the rest of us.




For the last two years, $250,000 in annual income has been an arbitrary line in the sand of a renewed class war. Those above it must have their income taxes raised. Those below it are deemed more virtuous and so deserving of a tax cut.

But who exactly are the “rich”? Zillionaires such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and George Soros surely are. But these wealthiest individuals have so much money at their disposal that they don’t care much about income-tax rates. Their tax lawyers have found ingenious ways to divert millions of what would be owed to Uncle Sam by funding tax-free pet causes, private foundations, and favored charities – in a way not available to those who make far less than a million dollars a year.

Is annual income a good gauge of wealth? Who is richer — the architect in Monterey, Calif., who makes $250,000 a year and who paid $700,000 for a modest house while picking up the full tab of $50,000 a year for his daughter at a private liberal-arts college, or the engineer in Salt Lake City, Utah, making $100,000 a year who has a house twice as large at half the cost, and whose son is on a need-based scholarship at the university? Should annual income alone trump all other considerations when the costs of living vary widely by region, and eligibility for billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies is predicated on income levels?

By the same token, what exactly is “poor” in a globalized world of cheap imported TVs, cell phones, and high-tech gadgetry available to most Americans at Walmart and Target? The middle class today has better access to what were once called luxury items than did the super-wealthy just two decades ago.

How do we define tax “cuts”? Were the George W. Bush income-tax rates really “cuts” for the rich? Or were they across-the-board cuts only in comparison with the higher Clinton rates? In turn, were the Clinton rates actually “hikes” on top of the George H. W. Bush “hikes”? Both upped the lower Reagan rates, which in turn had been “cuts” from the higher Carter rates. In fact, every president’s newly adjusted income-tax rate is derided mostly on partisan political grounds as either a counterproductive hike that “kills small business” or an unfair “trickle-down” cut.

Income taxes don’t operate in a vacuum. That the “rich” should pay 39.5 percent on their income might seem justified in isolation. But what about property, state income, payroll, and other taxes that, combined with federal income taxes, can take up to 65 percent of some incomes in high-tax states?

In addition, income taxes are already graduated, so one pays a higher percentage of one’s income the more one makes. Yet 50 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all, while 5 percent of taxpayers pay nearly 60 percent of the total collected. The result is that half of Americans are likely to favor both higher entitlements, which they may well receive, and higher income taxes, which they most certainly will not pay.

Did the staggering annual national deficit arise from a lack of revenue or out-of-control spending? California manages to have the highest income, sales, and gas taxes and the largest deficits. Over the last decade, federal income-tax revenue — and budget deficits — have increased almost every year.

Income levels are not static. Belonging to the upper brackets is not always a matter of privilege or inheritance. Some Americans go in and out of the top tax brackets depending on the economy. Others are “rich” for only a few years in their 50s and 60s — making far less before and after.   

If we prefer high rates, we will see either more tax avoidance or a certain reluctance to work an extra day, buy new equipment, or hire a new employee — given that any additional income will be mostly eaten up in taxes. Those who make over $250,000 are those who would be more likely to hire new employees, and they usually can do it far more efficiently than the federal government.

Finally, if the goal is to increase federal revenue, then it is wisest to keep taxes as they are. That encourages Americans to make as much as they can and to hire and buy, thereby enriching the nation at large. But if the aim is instead to ensure that we mostly end up about the same, then raising taxes on the already highly taxed might make us more equal — and collectively all poorer as well.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254864/why-not-soak-rich-victor-davis-hanson

Offline bigram$

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 747
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2010, 05:15:12 PM »
I'm sorry if this gets me kicked off the board but i just have to say this
OLDSPORT YOU ARE A ph--kING IDIOT


I apologize to all for my comment Republican and Democrat alike .....but i can no longer stand this foolishness

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,754
  • Karma: +85/-1189
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2010, 06:17:38 PM »
it didn't take long for this thread to have colorful metaphors.
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline uchighlander

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,308
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2010, 06:59:53 PM »
I have a really simple question. If this deal....has as the president says.....the potential to create millions of jobs....why wasn't he working on it 2 years ago? GO VIKINGS!!!

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,754
  • Karma: +85/-1189
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2010, 07:05:34 PM »
I have a really simple question. If this deal....has as the president says.....the potential to create millions of jobs....why wasn't he working on it 2 years ago? GO VIKINGS!!!

 :popcorn:
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline Wildman78

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,871
  • Karma: +28/-82
    • View Profile
    • http://N/A
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2010, 07:19:43 PM »
I have a really simple question. If this deal....has as the president says.....the potential to create millions of jobs....why wasn't he working on it 2 years ago? GO VIKINGS!!!

Yeah that is an interesting question. I wonder what part of the deal is going to create millions of jobs. The Bush Tax Cuts have been in effect since 2001 and 2003 and there still is a need for more jobs. How is extending the Bush tax cuts going to create more jobs.   

« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 07:43:39 PM by Wildman78 »

Offline y04185

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,754
  • Karma: +85/-1189
  • Assistant GM
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2010, 05:19:09 AM »
wildman, the president said this deal will save or create jobs.  jobs were created during the bush administration.
Fayetteville State by choice. Bronco by the Grace of GOD.

Offline Wildman78

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,871
  • Karma: +28/-82
    • View Profile
    • http://N/A
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2010, 06:54:03 AM »

Which tax cuts actually create jobs?

...........................................

As Congress debates whether to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, we should consider their costs and also their effects on jobs. Extending the cuts just to those with incomes below $250,000 will cost about $255 billion annually, while including the remaining 2 percent of wealthy households adds another $55 billion to the annual tab. Over the next decade, this will cost $3 trillion to $4 trillion — a staggering sum, equal to about five times the price of the stimulus bill. And this while the public debt is growing enormously.

But can these tax cuts help create jobs? Unfortunately, the job creation track record of the Bush tax cuts was weak. Between January 2001 and the start of the recession in December 2007, the economy created a little more than five million jobs — or only about 60,000 per month. Even in the post-recession recovery period between 2003 and 2007, employment growth averaged only about 1 percent a year — slower than any decade since 1940.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46007.html

President Obama said his deal with Republicans has "the potential to create millions of jobs."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-tax-cut-deal-has-the-potential-to-create-millions-of-jobs/1

Bush tax cuts just 37 percent of the total deal

 Despite being billed as a great debate over the Bush tax cuts, the struggle between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans appears to have ended with an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts representing only about 37 percent of the total cost of the agreement Obama announced Monday night.

In August, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that that a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012 would amount to $336 billion. The New York Times estimates the cost of the entire package under consideration at $900 billion.

In its fact sheet on the tax cut framework, the White House provides some numbers on specific provisions:

•A $120 billion Social Security payroll tax cut in 2011, with the rate being cut from 6.2 percent of earned income to 4.2 percent. For a worker making $60,000 a year, this would result in an additional $1,200 in take-home pay.
•$56 billion in additional unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months.
•$40 billion in tax cuts for families and students, including a two-year extension of the American Opportunity tax credit which helps families
pay college tuitions, which was part of last year's stimulus.
The White House fact sheet did not detail the cost of a two-year accord on estate tax (taxing inherited wealth above $5 million at 35 percent).
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pegged the cost of that provision as $25 billion in her statement expressing opposition to the Republican parts of the agreement. The estate tax deal would "add insult to injury," Pelosi complained.

The accord which Obama unveiled Monday night must now be transformed into legislative language. It's far from certain what the final package will include and how many Democrats will vote for it.

But what Obama announced Monday turned out to be a blend of Bush tax cuts and Obama tax cuts.

full story at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/07/5606406-bush-tax-cuts-just-37-percent-of-the-total-deal


Offline uchighlander

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,308
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2010, 12:04:11 PM »
I have a really simple question. If this deal....has as the president says.....the potential to create millions of jobs....why wasn't he working on it 2 years ago? GO VIKINGS!!!

Yeah that is an interesting question. I wonder what part of the deal is going to create millions of jobs. The Bush Tax Cuts have been in effect since 2001 and 2003 and there still is a need for more jobs. How is extending the Bush tax cuts going to create more jobs.   


Wildman...this is how I understand extending the Bush tax cuts will create jobs....You know all that money that corporations have made this year and are not spending? Well now that they know what their tax liability will be for next few years they can start planning and spending that money....hopefully that will include hiring people. At least that's what Obama is hoping for....me too. GO VIKINGS!!!

Offline Ramese98

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,944
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • THE NEW ASU
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2010, 12:59:26 PM »
He was not in office two years ago?
It is What It is.....It will BE what it WILL be....

Offline Ken

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,105
  • Karma: +133/-70
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2010, 12:59:48 PM »
Uch might have a point.  Even though the tax cut will give us an $700 billion dollar deficit, the word on the street is that business is holding back ovee $2 trillion dollars in funds for hiring.  I just hope they don't do all of that hiring overseas.

Offline uchighlander

  • Assistant GM
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,308
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: House Democrats reject tax plan unless changed
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2010, 01:43:15 PM »
He was not in office two years ago?
You're right ...he wasn't....but I can be a wise a-- too....he should have still been working on it 2 years ago as a campaign platform. GO VIKINGS!!!

 

 

2019 Onnidan HBCU Composite Football Schedule

 

Powered by EzPortal