The Party of No has quickly silenced John Boehner after he said something which made common sense instead of spouting the pure party line. Now they are feverishly erecting roadblocks to extending the Bush tax cuts unless they continue the cuts for the wealthiest 2-3% of Americans.

The administration's tax-cut proposal will be a critical $300 billion shot in the arm for millions. The middle class folks who benefit will pump virtually every nickel back in to the domestic economy and actively move us further away from recession. Middle Americans are the people who will buy up the inventories which hopeful manufacturers have begun piling up since July at the highest levels in years. And as those inventories dry up, viola!, production and employment will continue to increase. The other critical component of the administration's plan proposes the most comprehensive tax credits to small businesses ever, with hefty writeoffs for those which expand and hire. This eliminates the concern about small businesses, family farms etc, being penalized by the tax cut ceiling limits. And finally, I submit, the 2-3% whose wallets will be tapped to help bring down the deficit will, in virtually every case, have their lifestyle affected to a negligible degree, or not at all. Will this mean they will decide to vacation in the Alps for only two months instead of three? Will they buy an Audi instead of a Bentley?

So then, for those of you who have been so worried about reducing the deficit, and believe that the administration is doing nothing to blunt the recession or reduce unemployment...What is wrong with exempting the wealthiest from the tax cuts and getting this legislation passed?

If you are going to give answers like these:

"It's discrimination against those who have worked so hard to reach their economic status"; or
"It will fail to stimulate corporate expansion and actually increase unemployment"; or
"it's just more of this damn Democratic socialism";

then may I respectfully request that you present real facts to justify your conclusions.

vilification.

Two quick questions.

How do the Republicans have the power to hold anything hostage or setup roadblocks?

Explain to me how raising taxes on anyone in the economic situation we are in now will help the economy.

so stopping a scheduled tax increase qualifies as a tax cut for the wealthy? The middle class will have no additional money to spread around than they have now, they just won't have their taxes raised. At least not this time.

The taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans include a very large number of Mom & Pop small businesses. It would be wrong to include them in this declining economy.

My second point is these are the people who hire the Middle and Lower class and with less money will hire less. Not a good scenario.

It's the same with the Health Care. With so much future uncertainty and with the prospect of escalating costs, businesses are holding their ground on employment and even laying off people in anticipation.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Two quick questions.

How do the Republicans have the power to hold anything hostage or setup roadblocks?

Explain to me how raising taxes on anyone in the economic situation we are in now will help the economy.

1) The history of pending legislation since 2009 illustrates what I meant.
2) It seems obvious that raising some taxes is a partial means by which we can reduce the deficit. I am suggesting that taxes be raised in areas where it will have the least negative impact. Here's another example: raising the taxes on alcohol and tobacco products.

Now, do you care to answer my question?

bk is right. The Republicans can't stop anything. If its such a wonderful idea then there shouldn't be a problem geetting all the Dems to vote for it.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

The taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans include a very large number of Mom & Pop small businesses. It would be wrong to include them in this declining economy.

My second point is these are the people who hire the Middle and Lower class and with less money will hire less. Not a good scenario.

It's the same with the Health Care. With so much future uncertainty and with the prospect of escalating costs, businesses are holding their ground on employment and even laying off people in anticipation.

You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

Until defined and brackets from $x to $Y will pay _ _ _, etc
it is impossible to answer the question.
Wealth, has arbitrary definitions ranging from $75,000 to multi billions....a big difference.

As a result smal business owners who are not really "wealthy" can/will be affected. This is the area where it counts the most. This is the area that will not hire if they have to pay more taxes, etc.
Millionaires and billionaires have less impact on employment and they have the legal where withall to avoid any tax levied on them they so choose to avoid.

The small business owners are caught in the generalization of "wealthy".

That has to be sorted out to have any chance of success.

btk

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

This is a report from the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This is the group which just joined in the states' lawsuit against the Constitutionality of Obama's new healthcare reform.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/sbet201009.pdf

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

bk is right. The Republicans can't stop anything. If its such a wonderful idea then there shouldn't be a problem geetting all the Dems to vote for it.

I am also at a loss on this party of no thing. For the last 4 years actually the Dems have controlled congress and for the last 2 hard fast control. The Republicans can stop NOTHING WHATSOEVER !

Originally Posted by happy employee

so stopping a scheduled tax increase qualifies as a tax cut for the wealthy? The middle class will have no additional money to spread around than they have now, they just won't have their taxes raised. At least not this time.

Excellent point.

The administration's tax-cut proposal will be a critical $300 billion shot in the arm for millions. The middle class folks who benefit will pump virtually every nickel back in to the domestic economy and actively move us further away from recession.

Yes, just a little off there. There is NO tax cut proposal from the Democrats.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

You may have missed the second part of the tax relief plan I mentioned. I't's what WILL result in new hires and production.
I have not seen any facts supporting your statement that future uncertainty about health care significantly relates to businesses "holding their ground" and especially "even laying off people in anticipation". Can you give me any examples of where this has happened which collectively may have had some measurable effect on the US economy?

Measurable effect on the US economy? Would you look at it that way if it was your job?

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=29196

ijusluvit said, "It seems obvious that raising some taxes is a partial means by which we can reduce the deficit."

In reality, higher taxes can't reduce the deficit. This from the Democrats at the hard left Brookings Institute.

What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. Such dramatic tax increases are politically untenable and still wouldn’t come close to eliminating the deficit.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploa...uts-debate.pdf