The Looming Battle between Idiot #1 and Idiot #2

[Rocknwolf]

Boner and Cantdo, backed into a corner again by the much smarter President Obama and the house and senate leadership. Boner realizes that legislation must be completed and sent to the senate, but he is so worried about the "optics" given the obstructionism of repukes all year long.
The neocons can deny it, the worry is real that the voting public may very well throw the teabaggers and their allies out because they have proven they can't govern.
This is funny.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70030.html

And this info is from a news source, not some lame brained op ed writer that like to take a fact and turn it into major lie.

 

[jasmin]

It's a news source? Last I checked, there is an author. They are doing far more that reporting facts. Unless, of course, they have super human powers and can read minds as the article includes commentary on how Cantor sees himself and what Boehner thinks. He goes farther and even says the "facts" aren't based on exact statements, but what he has concluded based on interviews. The commentary isn't based on facts and public statements, but the author's opinion. He says Boehner is worried about "optics"; this is not anything Cantor or Boehner said.

You can't dispute anything in the article I cited so dismiss it as opinion. Your article is also opinion, written by a left-wing hack on a liberal sight who couldn't get a real journalism job.

What, exactly, is wrong with two leaders seeing different solutions? The House has passed jobs bills, budgets, and more, only to have them sit and collect dust in the senate. And where is obama while all this is going on? Is it campaign week or vacation week?

 

[Bubble Burster]

It's a news source? Last I checked, there is an author. They are doing far more that reporting facts. Unless, of course, they have super human powers and can read minds as the commentary includes commentary on how Cantor sees himself and what Boehner thinks. He goes farther and even says the "facts" aren't based on exact statements, but what he has concluded based on interviews. The commentary isn't based on facts and public statements, but the author's opinion.

You can't dispute anything in the article I cited so dismiss it as opinion. Your article is also opinion, written by a left-wing hack on a liberal sight who couldn't get a real journalism job.

You're wasting your breath. The OP doesn't even understand the ramifications of his own party's confiscatory tax policies.

 

[jasmin]

I know. Maybe this will help her.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-confiscatory-taxes.htm

 

[Rocknwolf]

I know. Maybe this will help her.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-confiscatory-taxes.htm

Littlemandude, you just are stuck on that rightwingnut idealogy. If there was confiscatory taxes in this country it was in the 40's and 50's. Since then, the wealthy have gotten the biggest benefit from the tax policy of this country.

 

[jasmin]

Littlemandude, you just are stuck on that rightwingnut idealogy. If there was confiscatory taxes in this country it was in the 40's and 50's. Since then, the wealthy have gotten the biggest benefit from the tax policy of this country.

Is that right?So the AMT is gone? Penalties and deductions to control behavior are gone?

Do you know which deductions are income limited?

Benefit in percent of income or dollars? Now I know you are a self-proclaimed socialist but you have to give up talking about taxes. You just don't know anything. I give up. I gave you an easy resource and you still can't understand it.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

 

[jasmin]

I know you will dismiss the source again but you can't challenge the facts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...ecting-president-obamas-myriad-tax-fallacies/

Even before you were elected, Mr. President, under the tax policies adopted by President Reagan, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the much vilified President George Bush, official IRS data for 2007 showed that the top 1% of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined! The top 1% of income earners that year earned 22% of income but paid 40.4% of total income taxes. When Reagan became president, the top 1% paid 17.4% of income taxes, as I note in my recent book, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb. As Jack Kemp used to say, if you want to soak the rich, cut tax rates. Moreover, nearly the entire bottom 50% of income earners now pay no federal income tax on net as a group.

So if “the rich” are not paying their fair share, Mr. President, what would that fair share be? Based on these official facts, for you to run around the country telling America that we could have jobs and balance the budget and solve the debt crisis you are creating if the rich would just pay their fair share of taxes only demonstrates that you fundamentally do not understand the country that was so generous and kindhearted to elect you President without really knowing you.

As the Wall Street Journal further explained Tuesday, in 2008 official IRS data showed that taxpayers earning over $1 million paid an average federal income tax rate of 23.3%. Those earning between $500,000 and $1 million paid an average federal tax rate of 24.1%. As the Journal further elaborated, “that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.”

The Obama/Buffett ruse arises just like any other magician’s trick. It focuses attention on just one tax rate paid on income arising from capital investment – the capital gains tax rate of 15%. The florid abusive rhetoric distracts from the multiple taxation of capital investment income, which is actually taxed at least four separate times under our tax code. Capital investment income is taxed first by the above mentioned, abusive, internationally uncompetitive corporate income tax. If any is paid out as dividends, then it is taxed again by the individual income tax. If the value of the capital interest, say a share of stock, manages to increase in the Obama depression, then it is taxed again by the capital gains tax. If anything is left at death, then it is subject to taxation again by the death tax.

That is how the top 1% of income earners ends up paying more than the bottom 95% combined. And it is why the average tax rate paid by millionaires is three times the average rate paid by the middle class.

On the basis of his abusively misleading rhetoric, Obama in his campaign speech on Monday called for $1.5 trillion in increased taxes. That would be on top of all the tax increases for which Obama has already won enactment under current law for 2013. In that year, the tax increases of Obamacare become effective, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has refused to renew for the nation’s small businesses, job creators, and investors.

As a result, the top two income tax rates will go up by nearly 20%. The capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%. The tax on dividends would nearly triple. The Medicare payroll tax would rocket up by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers. That is all on top of virtually the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and before the new tax increases President Obama called for on Monday.

 

[Rocknwolf]

Is that right?So the AMT is gone? Penalties and deductions to control behavior are gone?

Do you know which deductions are income limited?

Benefit in percent of income or dollars? Now I know you are a self-proclaimed socialist but you have to give up talking about taxes. You just don't know anything. I give up. I gave you an easy resource and you still can't understand it.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Again, the voices in your head must be baffling to you. Your boy, the genius ronnie raygun instituted the AMT because of his idiotic and horrendous individual tax cuts for the greedy wealthy. So if you want to bitch about "so-called" confiscatory taxes like AMT, go bitch to your thieving repukatards, who always and without fail, try to paint libs and dems as tax and spenders, while the truth is the conservatards tax and lie, spend and don't pay the bill, run up debts and deficits and say they don't matter.


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

 

[jasmin]

Again, the voices in your head must be baffling to you. Your boy, the genius ronnie raygun instituted the AMT because of his idiotic and horrendous individual tax cuts for the greedy wealthy. So if you want to bitch about "so-called" confiscatory taxes like AMT, go bitch to your thieving repukatards, who always and without fail, try to paint libs and dems as tax and spenders, while the truth is the conservatards tax and lie, spend and don't pay the bill, run up debts and deficits and say they don't matter.


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

We've already had this discussion. No, that is not the true history of the AMT. It was the tax reform act of 1969, with roots like most bad economic and social policy with Johnson, which was yet another attempt to target the rich. Back then, there were tax shelters and many other options that don't exist today. The AMT as we know it today was implemented under Carter. The biggest issues are that the AMT has not been properly adjusted for inflation so many more will be targeted just for having several kids and a high income and that the percentage has gone up far more than other tax brackets. If you even read all of your own link you would know this.

 

[Rocknwolf]

We've already had this discussion. No, that is not the true history of the AMT. It was the tax reform act of 1969, with roots like most bad economic and social policy with Johnson, which was yet another attempt to target the rich. Back then, there were tax shelters and many other options that don't exist today. The AMT as we know it today was implemented under Carter. The biggest issues are that the AMT has not been properly adjusted for inflation so many more will be targeted just for having several kids and a high income and that the percentage has gone up far more than other tax brackets. If you even read all of your own link you would know this.

Once again you prove you know nothing, the original bill came out of the 91st congress, it was known as the Minimum Tax, and was signed into law by NIXON. Johnson had already left office, so quit blaming him.
The AMT as we know it today was enacted by Raygun and like it's predecessor, was not indexed to inflation. It was tweaked several time by Raygun and then Bush 1, but the blame falls squarely on the repukes, in their attempt to offset the stupid wars they wanted to be in.
The other reason of course for the AMT was rich fat cats were using tax shelters and loophole to avoid paying any tax.
So if you don't like the tax, fine, but get your facts straight about who actually signed both bills into law.

 

[Breakingnews]

If the cuts don't pass then it exposes the GOP. Republicans run on a platform of cutting spending and being against all tax hikes yet they forget to mention the part of only being against all taxes for the rich. Between the teabaggers, the religious right and the Grover Norquist pledges, the GOP is imploding.

Punch on, Mr. President and Senator Reid, you've got them on the ropes.

 

[RockificationSpacification]

Boner and Cantdo, backed into a corner again by the much smarter President Obama and the house and senate leadership. Boner realizes that legislation must be completed and sent to the senate, but he is so worried about the "optics" given the obstructionism of repukes all year long.
The neocons can deny it, the worry is real that the voting public may very well throw the teabaggers and their allies out because they have proven they can't govern.
This is funny.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70030.html

And this info is from a news source, not some lame brained op ed writer that like to take a fact and turn it into major lie.

Hey libtards, just wondering why your smart leadership hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years?

 

[jasmin]

Once again you prove you know nothing, the original bill came out of the 91st congress, it was known as the Minimum Tax, and was signed into law by NIXON. Johnson had already left office, so quit blaming him.
The AMT as we know it today was enacted by Raygun and like it's predecessor, was not indexed to inflation. It was tweaked several time by Raygun and then Bush 1, but the blame falls squarely on the repukes, in their attempt to offset the stupid wars they wanted to be in.
The other reason of course for the AMT was rich fat cats were using tax shelters and loophole to avoid paying any tax.
So if you don't like the tax, fine, but get your facts straight about who actually signed both bills into law.

Nope.

Read your own link if you don't want to read others.
From your wiki link ( a very flawd, uncheck source btw)
A predecessor Minimum Tax was enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[14] and went into effect in 1970. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes.[15] The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that reduced their tax liabilities to zero.[16] Congress responded by creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer’s regular tax liability.

And others:

Why Was the AMT Enacted?
Congress enacted the AMT in 1969 following testimony by the Secretary of the Treasury that 155 people with adjusted gross income above $200,000 had paid zero federal income tax on their 1967 tax returns. (See Appendix for the AMT’s legislative history.) In inflation-adjusted terms, those 1967 incomes would be roughly $1.17 million in today’s dollars.

This tax avoidance by a few high-income taxpayers was widely perceived as unfair. Rather than directly addressing the problem by eliminating the deductions and credits in the tax code that were leading to the tax avoidance, Congress laid an additional layer of complexity over the regular income tax in the form of the AMT.

And

The story of the AMT begins with the Vietnam War. The government needed to secure additional funds to finance the war which in 1968 and 1969 was at its peak. According to Sheldon D. Pollack in The Failure of U.S. Tax Policy: Revenue and Politics, the need for new revenues led the executive branch "to embrace a conception of 'tax reform' consisting in closing revenue 'leaks' and reversing the 'erosion' of the tax base concomitant to the many preferences that had crept into the tax code." In his administration's last month in office President Lyndon Johnson named Joseph Barr treasury secretary. Both Barr and Assistent Secretary of the Treasury Stanley S. Surrey instigated the proposals to tighten the tax loopholes that eventually led to the creation of the AMT.

Surrey made the Johnson Administration aware of the growing economic cost tax preferences were having on the nation's finances, coining the term “tax expenditures." Surrey spent his years as assistant secretary compiling reports about the true nature and reality of tax expenditures in the country. This work culminated in the first tax expenditure budget, which included a complete list of major loopholes in the tax code, and identified the impact they had on the government and economy.

In August 1969 as he was preparing the next year's budget Barr warned that the country faced a taxpayers' revolt. He explained, according to the Washington Post, that in 1967 there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires. These individuals successfully used all tax loopholes available to legally evade paying taxes. The revelation attracted wide media attention and led to public shock. As he presented the next annual budget, published in the final weeks of his administration, President Johnson indicated that the problem needed to be addressed, but not by him:


We believe that in justice to the next Administration that will take office within the next month and will have to live with and administer any legislation passed, it is only appropriate that they have the opportunity to examine carefully and make their judgments to these matters.

Several possible solutions were discussed at the time including, according to anonymous sources with the House Ways and Means Committee run by Wilbur Mills, "the establishment of some sort of minimum tax on persons with large incomes who escape all taxation at present because their income is entirely from sources that receive preferred tax treatment, such as oil wells or municipal bonds." ("Tax Law changes Sought by Mills," NYT, January 1, 1969)


I bet you thought this class warfare and claims the rich don't pay enough was something new? Federal taxes started at 1% and quickly got out of control. The AMT, an idiotic plan to tax 155 taxpayers is so out of control that it is now taking extra taxes from almost 36 million taxpayers, even though there are almost no loopholes left and they already pay far more in dollars AND percent of income compared to other earners.

 

[jasmin]

Hey libtards, just wondering why your smart leadership hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years?

They are so brilliant, they can't be bothered with doing their jobs!

 

[Bubble Burster]

They are so brilliant, they can't be bothered with doing their jobs!

If you don't publish a budget people can't find out how much you should be spending.