CSNbbs

T-A-X H-I-K-E

No-tax-hike pledge creates Republican rift, potential roadblock to deficit deal

Republicans are feuding over whether to abandon the party’s long-held opposition to higher taxes in pursuit of a deficit-cutting deal with Democrats.

The rift in the Republican ranks has surfaced in a bitter back-and-forth between two heroes of the conservative movement: Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has been working with a bipartisan group of senators on a compromise to reduce government borrowing, and Grover Norquist, author of the no-tax-increase pledge that has become a rite of passage for GOP candidates.

At stake is a pillar of Republican orthodoxy that has for decades united every wing of the party in a quest to shrink government’s reach.

As the battle over the federal deficit escalates in Washington, the two men are sparring over Coburn’s seemingly narrow proposal to eliminate a $5 billion annual tax break awarded to companies that blend ethanol into gasoline. But both sides say this cuts to the core of a quandary for the GOP: Will the cause of trimming deficits run aground on the conservative principle that the government must not increase the amount of money it takes in through taxes?

Coburn has been the most visible Republican to challenge Norquist, perhaps the country’s most influential anti-tax advocate, but other Republicans have been willing to discuss a budget deal that would include raising more money through taxes, along with making deep spending cuts, to help reduce the deficit.

These include stalwart conservatives such as Sens. Saxby Cham­bliss (R-Ga.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). And on the ethanol issue, Coburn has drawn support from such conservative-movement fixtures as the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal.

And even some House leaders, including Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), have left the door open to negotiation.

For anti-tax purists, including many in the Republican Party, eliminating the ethanol break is unacceptable — measures that roll back corporate subsidies, individual deductions or loopholes of any sort without comparable tax cuts elsewhere are considered tax increases.

The tensions between Nor­quist’s Americans for Tax Reform and Coburn’s office have intensified, with each side sending the other terse, accusatory letters claiming to be the true conservatives. Coburn charges that the tax pledge, as interpreted by Norquist, is inflexible, and Coburn’s spokesman now labels Norquist the “chief cleric of sharia tax law.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...l_politics

Sarah Palin? That is how I spell "political suicide".

Btw, I really don't think it is "political suicide" to give a tax hike to the rich(ie. those that make over $250,000 a year-or even 500,000 if you believe that $250,000 somehow harms small businesses). Maybe it would be to you since you are independently wealthy(or the delerious who still think "trickle down" actually works-or in your case, both), but for the average person, they could care less if some rich man got his tax break. As long as he doesn't have to pay more in taxes. If you didn't know, there are more of the "commoon man" than there are wealthy and/or stupid.

MOST of those that make over 250K are small business owners that file their entire business's income as personal income. Any increase on that results in less hiring. It's NOT f'n rocket science.

Robert, nobody has ever proposed "trickle-down." That was an attempt by the left to mischaracterize what was being proposed. Unfortunately, the right didn't jump on it and refute it quickly enough (they never do).

The effect that you wish to describe as "trickle down" can only happen when we are more attractive than other places for businesses to locate, so they come here and create jobs, and yes, wealth does accrue to those who work in those jobs and that is the effect that you mislabel "trickle down." The reason it has not worked that way is that we haven't been more attractive than other places for business in the last 40-50 years or so. When we were, prior to that, it DID work. That's why we were the most prosperous country in the world, a net exporter despite paying the highest wages in the world.

What we have done, most likely, is slow the rate of departure. And that is better than not slowing the rate of departure. But not much is going to "trickle down" from that. It just slows the rate of "trickle away."

Quote:to eliminate a $5 billion annual tax break awarded to companies that blend ethanol into gasoline.

Eliminate it. That's not a tax break -- that crony capitalism subsidies.

(04-15-2011 01:03 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Btw, I really don't think it is "political suicide" to give a tax hike to the rich(ie. those that make over $250,000 a year-or even 500,000 if you believe that $250,000 somehow harms small businesses).

Rob, $250k or even $500k is not rich. Rich to me means never having to work again and still getting EVERYTHING you want. If you had $250k right now you'd still have to spend a lifetime working.
Here is the tax formula you'd have to use if you earned $250k

$41,827.25 plus 33% of the amount over $171,850

You start off with $250k only to discover you never really had $250k.

(04-15-2011 08:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2011 01:03 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Btw, I really don't think it is "political suicide" to give a tax hike to the rich(ie. those that make over $250,000 a year-or even 500,000 if you believe that $250,000 somehow harms small businesses).

Rob, $250k or even $500k is not rich. Rich to me means never having to work again and still getting EVERYTHING you want. If you had $250k right now you'd still have to spend a lifetime working.
Here is the tax formula you'd have to use if you earned $250k

$41,827.25 plus 33% of the amount over $171,850

You start off with $250k only to discover you never really had $250k.

+1

(04-15-2011 01:48 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]MOST of those that make over 250K are small business owners that file their entire business's income as personal income. Any increase on that results in less hiring. It's NOT f'n rocket science.

Maybe based on your sources. Not what I have heard to be the case. As I said, if you truely believe that that number is true, then make it somewhere higher. I am just not buying that number though. Sorry.

(04-15-2011 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Robert, nobody has ever proposed "trickle-down." That was an attempt by the left to mischaracterize what was being proposed. Unfortunately, the right didn't jump on it and refute it quickly enough (they never do).

The effect that you wish to describe as "trickle down" can only happen when we are more attractive than other places for businesses to locate, so they come here and create jobs, and yes, wealth does accrue to those who work in those jobs and that is the effect that you mislabel "trickle down." The reason it has not worked that way is that we haven't been more attractive than other places for business in the last 40-50 years or so. When we were, prior to that, it DID work. That's why we were the most prosperous country in the world, a net exporter despite paying the highest wages in the world.

What we have done, most likely, is slow the rate of departure. And that is better than not slowing the rate of departure. But not much is going to "trickle down" from that. It just slows the rate of "trickle away."

Good stuff man. You should work as a comedian! Seriously, let me get this straight. what you are saying is "trickle down" is when you have high tax rates on the wealthy(thus putting more of money back into the company rather than hoarding it for themselves) and we are a manufacturing powerhouse. Funny, I thought trickle down was give tax breaks to the rich and outsource all our manufacturing jobs to third world countries. Hmm. I guess you learn something new everyday.

If you see an excessive tax hike on the rich, I'd bet a lot of subchapter "S" corporations (i.e., where owners pay the taxes on company profits) become "C" corporations (coroporations pay taxes on their earnings, owners only pay taxes on dividends).

(04-15-2011 08:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2011 01:03 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Btw, I really don't think it is "political suicide" to give a tax hike to the rich(ie. those that make over $250,000 a year-or even 500,000 if you believe that $250,000 somehow harms small businesses).

Rob, $250k or even $500k is not rich. Rich to me means never having to work again and still getting EVERYTHING you want. If you had $250k right now you'd still have to spend a lifetime working.
Here is the tax formula you'd have to use if you earned $250k

$41,827.25 plus 33% of the amount over $171,850

You start off with $250k only to discover you never really had $250k.

You honestly don't think 250,000/year is "rich"? Guess you needed to stay poor a little longer in order to understand that 250,000 IS rich. I guess if you pay $500,000 plus for a house and $50,000 for a stereo system, god only knows what car you drive(I see you as a Mercedes or BMW though Lexus is not out of the question), I guess it is possible that you might not understand how wealthy you are because you feel you are struggling with your bills. Try woking at $10/ hour sometime(hell, try living on 35,000/year). You just might appreciate what you had a little more and come to discover, "Wow, 250,000 is a lot of money and I was rich when I made that much-I just wasted it on material things that I could have done without or downgraded".

Anything else you want to decide for all the rest of us, libtard?

(04-16-2011 03:02 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Anything else you want to decide for all the rest of us, libtard?

Yeah. I have decided tea baggers like you are complete morons. Nobody except tea baggers can argue that!

(04-16-2011 02:04 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2011 08:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2011 01:03 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Btw, I really don't think it is "political suicide" to give a tax hike to the rich(ie. those that make over $250,000 a year-or even 500,000 if you believe that $250,000 somehow harms small businesses).

Rob, $250k or even $500k is not rich. Rich to me means never having to work again and still getting EVERYTHING you want. If you had $250k right now you'd still have to spend a lifetime working.
Here is the tax formula you'd have to use if you earned $250k

$41,827.25 plus 33% of the amount over $171,850

You start off with $250k only to discover you never really had $250k.

You honestly don't think 250,000/year is "rich"? Guess you needed to stay poor a little longer in order to understand that 250,000 IS rich. I guess if you pay $500,000 plus for a house and $50,000 for a stereo system, god only knows what car you drive(I see you as a Mercedes or BMW though Lexus is not out of the question), I guess it is possible that you might not understand how wealthy you are because you feel you are struggling with your bills. Try woking at $10/ hour sometime(hell, try living on 35,000/year). You just might appreciate what you had a little more and come to discover, "Wow, 250,000 is a lot of money and I was rich when I made that much-I just wasted it on material things that I could have done without or downgraded".

Rob, Let me address these things one at a time:

The Stereo

I got my first high end speakers in 1977 when I was making $4.05 an hour and those speakers cost me $1100.00. In 1989 I sold them for $450 and bought a another pair for $2500 and I continued trading up several times. When you buy good stuff it always retains some value and that's what I did right up to the time when I sold yet another pair and bought a demo set of speakers that would have cost $28,000 but I got them and the $22,000 amp that goes with it for far less. I've only paid full price twice in my life. Some people spend big $$$ on pools, vacations, etc. but what I spent my money on can be resold and/or taken with me when i move. Sadly, I had to sell the speakers but I still have everything else.

My Car

Back in 2006 I had a company car and a Pontiac Sunfire left over from a previous marriage. I gave the car away to the daughter of a woman who was very, very special but died way before her time. This left me with no personal car until I got laid off in 2007 and my wife took part of my severence pay and got me a Tacoma that would be needed for my next job. Back then she was driving a Lexus RX 350 but she sold it and now drives a Civic.

My Finances

When I met my wife I was making right around $100k and she, as a business owner for 26 years and an employer of 80 or so people, made about $400k per year. When I got laid off in 2007 the construction business was just starting to tank. As my wife started laying off more and more people and contractors went belly up and didn't pay my wife's business hundreds of thousands of dollars, my wife, without my knoklwedge, used our personal $$$ to try to keep the business afloat. She wsn't getting a paycheck but her employees were. (since her employees were making less than her should they have money taken away from them to support my wife? That's how libs think, isn't it? Take from those that have and give it to those that don't. Redistribution of wealth didn't work for us) All that did delay the closing and drain our account.

My House

Before moving in with me, my wife sold a house that she paid $150k for and got about $235k. In 2006 I sold a house that I bought new in 1992 for $145k and closed the deal making about $175k in profit. In 2006 we dropped $650k on a house at the very peak of house prices. The new owners did their final walk through yesterday as the last part of a short sale. All told, I lost about $250k our of my pocket on that house.

When we talk about rich, we're talking about people who do not have to worry about money at all, people like the Kennedys, Kerrys, and Pelosis. Even though Obama is a millionaire, he's not rich. If all he had was a few million and nothing coming in he's just one disaster from washing out. And now that I'm in El Paso, the $10/hr job you mentioned would be seen as an excellent job by most people I've come to know but to you its a non-starter. I'm also guessing that a private in the military makes less than $10/hr when you consider how many hours they put in. Why do you hate privates in the military?

Luv ya Rob

Steve, you work and earn your money. You don't need to justify or explain anything to that little mooching, cocksucking prick.

Instead of being envious of what others have, be concerned about your own pitiful waste of life Robbie boy.

(04-16-2011 09:06 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Steve, you work and earn your money. You don't need to justify or explain anything to that little mooching, cocksucking prick.

Instead of being envious of what others have, be concerned about your own pitiful waste of life Robbie boy.

Robbie is the "King of Section 8 Housing." (Notice I didn't give him credit for living in a Refrigerator Box under and Interstate overpass).

(04-16-2011 02:04 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]You honestly don't think 250,000/year is "rich"? Guess you needed to stay poor a little longer in order to understand that 250,000 IS rich. I guess if you pay $500,000 plus for a house and $50,000 for a stereo system, god only knows what car you drive(I see you as a Mercedes or BMW though Lexus is not out of the question), I guess it is possible that you might not understand how wealthy you are because you feel you are struggling with your bills. Try woking at $10/ hour sometime(hell, try living on 35,000/year). You just might appreciate what you had a little more and come to discover, "Wow, 250,000 is a lot of money and I was rich when I made that much-I just wasted it on material things that I could have done without or downgraded".

Rob you really are clueless...

The *AVERAGE* house in Flushing New York Costs 500K so you're saying *every* home owner in Queens is rich? really? The left has so polarized us as to convince people that make 80K that their enemies are people making 250K and convince people who make 30K that their enemies are people who make 80K.

Rich means you don't have to work. When you sit around living off of dividends and don't put in 40-60 hours a week... you're rich.

Hell Rob two experienced Teachers in New Jersey that marry have a household income of almost 180K, are they rich?

Rob, while i admit to having it good for a few years, if we didn't buy the Lexus, expensive stereos and house, etc, the guys that make them would be out of jobs. is that what you really want?

Hey, El Paso, you're to nice to him.

Sounds like things are getting better Steve. Getting the rest of the familia out of that cesspool soon I hope?

(04-16-2011 02:04 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Try woking at $10/ hour sometime(hell, try living on 35,000/year). You just might appreciate what you had a little more and come to discover, "Wow, 250,000 is a lot of money and I was rich when I made that much-I just wasted it on material things that I could have done without or downgraded".

I'm going to assume that everyone on here has worked a job that paid <$10/hr at one point, and made their ends meet. Why should they devalue their experiences and talents by accepting a pay decrease. Their hard work should be going to themselves, not to those with less work ethic and fewer talents. Why work extra hard if it will only go to someone else? And go there without your control or discretion.