Thus my Blog is correct - “GOP Claim Democrats Will Increase Taxes is a LIE!"

No, actually it isn't correct. As already stated, all they have to do is allow the tax cuts to expire and they have raised everyone's taxes, and they do not need Presidential signature to do that. All they have to do is nothing. Please list (with sources) the Democrats who have publicly stated that they intend to extend the Bush tax cuts.

You can't, because there aren't any. Your claim that the Democrats intend to cut or maintain tax cuts on the middle income is a lie. Please provide proof of this claim. The Democrats have always been about taxation and always will be.

This is the very same tactic Bush and Cheney used to convince Congress and the American People to invade Iraq. "The smoking Gun could be a mushroom cloud over our cities". Even though the intelligence said that in March 2003 Saddam had no active nuclear weapons program.

Col, that quote didn't make congress vote for Iraq. Democrats thought Iraq had WMD's and was a threat way before Bush was elected. Get over it.

I might be asking from ignorance here, but when was the last time ANY administration did NOT raise any taxes regaurdless of political orientation?

Reply #18 I might be asking from ignorance here, but when was the last time ANY administration did NOT raise any taxes regaurdless of political orientation?

The current one, which cut taxes.

The current one, which cut taxes.

Please bear with me Mason, I'm not that great with all this stuff.

So the current administration cut taxes. Did the deficit go up/down, or remain constant.

What I'm wondering is is it a consequence that if an administration does not raise taxes that the deficit increases?

This is absolutely amazing. The second I started reading this post, I had to laugh. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION JUST LIES TO US. BLAHBLAHBLAH.

First of all, the Death tax(Federal Estate Tax) is not just applicable to the "Rich". The people it hurts the most are the small business owners who can not afford to pass of their business to their children. To put this in english for you, they have to sell out and LAY OFF workers. Farmers have an extremely difficult time with this because the land that has been in their family for generations has to be sold. A hell of a lot more than 1% in this country pays the tax. The Joint Economic Committee has determined that the tax hinders economic growth and capital by $847 billion dollars. You want to talk about equality. The committe also conducted surveys on how this tax hurts minorities. The tax will consume 11-13% of African American wealth over the next 50 years. Liberals talk about how they want equality for everyone. We need Socialism to ensure the RICH DONT GET RICHER, and the POOR GET MORE. Well, sorry to tell you, this tax does not do that. It makes things worse for a lot more than 1% of the country.

Your income tax argument is absolutely insulting. Ignorance can not be tolerated when you are making such wild comments. The tax cuts DO impact everyone. The tax rates have gone down in every bracket. I am not going to quote, because you can stop being lazy and find them yourself pretty much anywhere. Here is the most ignorant thing you said: "The Republican Campaign Ads make it sound like Democrats will increase the taxes for ALL taxpayers when the ONLY group that could see an increase in their taxes are the top 10%- THOSE THAT DO NOT need THE TAX CUTS they got by the Bush Tax Cuts and that added revenue would help balance the budget." So, what you are saying is that because they make enough, the government has a RIGHT to take what they want?
This is just a thought, but have you ever considered the fact that if you pay more in the first place, you should get more back? Or, if there will be a cut, it should go to those who are paying taxes in the first place? If you dont PAY ANYTHING, YOU SHOULD NOT GET ANYTHING BACK. How do you cut NOTHING? In 2003, 1% of this country payed 55% of the taxes. The top 10% payed around 72% of the taxes, and the top 50% payed around 95% of the taxes. So, basically, you want the bottom half of the country who only payed 5% of the taxes in the first place, to receive all of the benefits? Your sense of equality knows no bounds. No one (this includes the government), has a right to take anyone elses money. If you made $10 million a year, and a thief robbed you, is that ok? You have enough right, so why should you care? I understand that the government needs money, and taxing is just a part of life. However, when tax breaks are given, they need to go to those who actually pay taxes. It does not matter how much that person makes.

Finally, it is true that a bill can not become law without the signature of the President. However, if the President does not sign the bill, it goes back to Congress and they can overturn the President's decision. It is called Balance of Power.

If you disagree with what I posted, then check out the Joint Economic Committee's paper, and the IRS tax sheet from 2003. Your comments are founded on ignorance. Next time, actually think and research instead of sitting at your computer spouting BS!!!

"Facts are annoying things"

Ealnid85 October 23, 2006 19:24:2

LOL, that was the most painful reply I have read towards Col gene. Nothing like a little bit of truth (something Col seems to search a lot for but continues to elude him) to get your day started.

I hope you don't mind, but I would like to place a few links to point towards this tax that Col claims only 1% of the American population it affects.

Freedom Works

Death Tax

And my fav:

Wiki

That should do it. Of course expect a "you're lying or yous a drone" argument from him any time soon.

Island Dog

"The smoking Gun could be a mushroom cloud over our cities". Even though the intelligence said that in March 2003 Saddam had no active nuclear weapons program." My point is that Bush and Cheney lied when they said the above since the intelligence at that time said Saddam had no active nuclear program. Bush and Cheney tried to scare us into believing the U.S. was in such danger from Saddam that we could not wait to remove him from power. The truth was that Saddam was a paper tiger in late 2002. In fact the Pentagon evaluation of the capability of Saddam in late 2002 was that he had only limited ability to operate within Iraq. Saddam had no offensive capability and was no danger to the United States. Bush IGNORED both the intelligence and the Pentagon assessment and insisted we were in danger from someone that did not have the capability to conduct ANY action against the U.S. LIES, LIES,LIES!!!!!

Allowing the tax cut law to take effect is NOT voting to increase taxes. That was the vote that took place when the tax cuts were passed.

If the Democrats win either house of congress, they should pass a bill that makes the tax cuts for MIDDLE income taxpayers permanent and force Bush and the GOP to stop help to the Middle Income Workers. Then that can be used in the 2008 election to end GOP control. The GOP has proven they do not represent what the majority want for our country. The results of their policies have been shown to be a failure for ALL but the WEALTHY!

Charles C

This solves the family farm/Business issue without ending the Estate Tax. Most of the people who pay the Estate Tax are NOT FARMERS OF FAMILY BUSINESS OWNERS. Less then 1% OF ESTATES PAY any Federal Estate Tax!!!!!


As for the argument that the Estate tax causes family farms and business to be impacted, a simple change to the Estate tax law allowing the deferral of the estate taxes when a farm of business passes to the family. However, if the Family farm or business is later sold to non family, the Estate tax would be payable. There could also be a reasonable exemption like $2 Million per person so the average person would not be impacted by the Estate Tax.

September 19, 2005

NEW TAX CUTS PRIMARILY BENEFITING MILLIONAIRES SLATED TO TAKE EFFECT IN JANUARY:
Should They be Implemented While Katrina Costs Mount?
By Robert Greenstein, Joel Friedman, and Isaac Shapiro

PDF of this report
Categories:
All Reports by Date

Budget Priorities After Hurricane Katrina

Federal Tax Policy

More Topics... Back to Home Page - Publications by Subject - Press Room -Special Report Series About the Center - Board of Directors - Internship Programs - Job Opportunities - Staff Bios Join E-Mail List Donate to the Center

If you cannot access the files through the links, right-click on the underlined text, click "Save Link As," download to your directory, and open the document in Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Summary

Even before Hurricane Katrina, large deficits were projected far into the future, with the nation’s debt burden ultimately swelling to unsustainable levels. The relief and recovery from Hurricane Katrina is estimated to cost $100 billion to $200 billion, adding to the nation’s mounting debt. Debate has now begun about whether in the face of these costs and the grim long-term fiscal outlook, some belt-tightening and “shared sacrifice” are in order.

The budget reconciliation bills that Congress is slated to consider this fall will not help. Taken together, the two bills will increase deficits by more than $35 billion over five years. Under these bills, $35 billion in cuts in programs such as Medicaid and food stamps will be used not to reduce the deficit, but to offset a portion of the $70 billion that the reconciliation tax-cut bill will cost.

On September 16, President Bush said further budget cuts will be needed. The Administration presumably intends these cuts to come primarily in domestic programs. One obvious step, however, is being overlooked: Two tax cuts enacted in 2001 that are not yet in effect — and will only start taking effect on January 1 — could be reconsidered as a way of helping to defray some of the costs of Katrina relief and recovery. These two tax cuts will benefit only high-income households (primarily millionaires), will do little for the economy beyond further increasing the deficit, and were not even requested by President Bush in the first place. (They were added by Congress.)

The highly respected Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year — the richest 0.2 percent of the U.S. population — already are receiving tax cuts averaging $103,000 this year, before these two new tax cuts take effect. The Tax Policy Center finds that the two tax-cut measures in question will give these “millionaires” nearly another $20,000 a year in tax cuts, when the measures are phased in fully.

This raises the question of whether the nation should proceed with these tax cuts at a time when many Katrina survivors remain in difficult straits, when huge sums are being discussed for Katrina relief and recovery, and when cuts in domestic programs — including programs for the poor — are slated for Congressional consideration this fall as part of the reconciliation bills.

President Clinton on the Today Show, September 16, 2005

Matt Lauer: What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make to pay those [hurricane relief and Iraq war] bills?

President Clinton: I would repeal the tax cuts for upper-income people. I myself have gotten 4 tax cuts while young Americans have gone off to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we've had this massive natural disaster. We've run up this huge deficit. How are we covering this money? We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia to pay for the suffering of our people in the Gulf area, to pay for the Iraq War, and to cover my tax cuts — and we are expecting our children to pay the bill. We've made a decision to lower the living standards of our children and grandchildren and to soak other people around the world who don't have the money we do, by and large, to cover our self-indulgence.

Allowing the tax cut law to take effect is NOT voting to increase taxes. That was the vote that took place when the tax cuts were passed.

No it's "not voting" to keep taxes decreased. And by not voting it "allows" taxes to increase via the democrats. So in every sense of the word your title is a lie in itself. "Democrats WILL increase your taxes"! By simply not voting.

even if BOTH houses of Congress were to vote for a change in taxes, without the signature of the President they CAN NOT BECOME LAW!

For at least 2 years we've been trying to explain this to you. I'm glad to see you finally get it.

drmiler

As usual you are wrong. The democrats have said they favor making the tax cuts on the Middle Income taxpayers permanent. Thus they will keep the taxes low on those that NEED the help and allow the law to increase taxes on the wealthy just as the law intended when it was passed!

Daiwa

Then I assume you agree with this Blog i.e. If Democrats take over the Congress they can not increase taxes as the GOP Ads claim!

Daiwa

I understand this but since Jan 2001 the GOP members of Congress have been in lock step with almost everything Bush has wanted to accomplish. The idea that to be a loyal American you must support the Commander-in-Chief has required that the Congress because it is controlled by the GOP rubber stamps the President's policies and has taken away the checks and balance. The GOP are NOT acting as an independent branch but an extension of the Executive.

Since you agree it would take Bush to go along with any attempt by the Democrats to increase taxes, then you agree the GOP ADS are LIES when they say a Democratic takeover of Congress will increase your taxes! The Democrats would also have to win the White House and then act like the GOP has acted over the past 6 years.