FRIHOST ē FORUMS ē SEARCH ē FAQ ē TOS ē BLOGS ē COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


House Dems Vote Against Obama's Tax Plan





deanhills
This sounds quite interesting. House Democrats rejecting Obama's proposed tax deal with Republicans. I would have thought he would have run that by them first before he negotiated with the Republicans? Sounds a little bit back to front?
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Source: Yahoo!News
jwellsy
This is all kabuki political theater.

BO was not negotiating in good faith to begin with. As soon as they announced the deal,, he instantly started saying that in two years he would fight it tooth and nail again. That's not a resolution, it's just tabling the issue.

Do you really think the dems have turned against BO? No way. I'm sure there were many closed door dem only strategy meetings before and during the supposed negotiations. The 2012 re-election campaign strategy has begun.
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
Do you really think the dems have turned against BO? No way. I'm sure there were many closed door dem only strategy meetings before and during the supposed negotiations. The 2012 re-election campaign strategy has begun.
No, I don't think they have turned against BO, but I do think they are against negotiating with the Republicans and probably had to stand up and beat their drum so as to ensure that those negotiations will be the minimum needed to get what they want. They don't want to make it too easy for the Republicans.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Do you really think the dems have turned against BO? No way. I'm sure there were many closed door dem only strategy meetings before and during the supposed negotiations. The 2012 re-election campaign strategy has begun.
No, I don't think they have turned against BO, but I do think they are against negotiating with the Republicans and probably had to stand up and beat their drum so as to ensure that those negotiations will be the minimum needed to get what they want. They don't want to make it too easy for the Republicans.


I think it might be a sign of a fissure in the Democratic party. Democrats followed Obama, Reid and Pelosi's 'leadership' and instituted a series of backward Lefty policies, like their healthcare scheme (which made a nice kickback to their donors in the insurance industry), and voters expressed their rejection of the idiotic policies in the November elections. The Democrats now have to placate their far-left base, the only real support they have left at this point, and they decided that Obama was an easy scapegoat, even for their own party. All you need to do is read some of the commentary on the far-left sites to realize even they are starting to dislike the guy. I think the Left is being disingenuous, as usual, but thatís the subject for another topic. The general idea, however, is that all parties involved (in the general sense, not political parties) seem to be in agreement that Obama is an epic fail.

In the end the Democrats will make a compromise, but first they need to nuisance everyone with their noise. They know that raising taxes is the last thing the economy needs right now, but they will extend the Bush tax rates begrudgingly because extending them reaffirms that Republicans were right in reducing taxes for everyone earlier this decade led to the prosperity we saw until the Democrats took over Congress, and are right now in that raising taxes as the Democrats want to will hurt the economy.

All the talk that extending the Bush tax cuts will somehow actually stimulate the economy isnít quite accurate, however. While the Democratsí plan to raise taxes would have hurt the economy, extending the Bush tax cuts only maintains the status quo with rates the same next year for everyone as they have been for the almost decade. For real stimulus, unlike the fiasco the Left pushed last year, we would need to see additional tax cuts, offset by a reduction in government spending. Itíll be interesting to see if Republicans deliver on that promise when they take back control of Congress in the next session.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
In the end the Democrats will make a compromise, but first they need to nuisance everyone with their noise.
Think this about sums it all up.
jmi256 wrote:
Itíll be interesting to see if Republicans deliver on that promise when they take back control of Congress in the next session.
It will be particularly interesting to see whether this is going to result in real change or just a continuance of all of the protest noises that were made during the November elections, without having a real concrete plan in place. In other words it is going to create a lame duck congress out of the protests. For example, instead of getting the Health Insurance Bill nixed, it may start to hack at it bit by bit so that it can never really be implemented, instead of coming up with a compromise of making it better.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
It will be particularly interesting to see whether this is going to result in real change or just a continuance of all of the protest noises that were made during the November elections, without having a real concrete plan in place. In other words it is going to create a lame duck congress out of the protests. For example, instead of getting the Health Insurance Bill nixed, it may start to hack at it bit by bit so that it can never really be implemented, instead of coming up with a compromise of making it better.

Republicans arenít going to be able to fix what Obama and the Democrats screwed up within the next Congress. Without a veto-proof majority, the Republicans will be unable to pass anything that fixes the problems and Democrats will be able to make sure their failed Obamacare stays in place. They have basically spit in the faces of the American public by passing something they said they did not want or support, so I doubt they will have a change of heart. So Republicans will have to pick it to pieces. Or Americans will need to lodge a successful Constitutional fight, which I think may I think we may be able to do given that I still havenít found where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to mandate that citizens buy private products/services. But if anyone finds it, please let me know. Besides, I think Obamacare is screwed beyond fixing, and once Obama is gone there stands a chance that something that actually addresses the issues and works is implemented rather than what the Left has served up. Letís see: Did it result in lower insurance costs? No, actually insurance rates have increased by double digits. Did it reduce medical costs? No, and adding in a layer of bureaucracy will increase those costs further. All it did was redistribute the payments, and added a hefty dose of government inefficiency to the mix.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
In the end the Democrats will make a compromise, but first they need to nuisance everyone with their noise.
Think this about sums it all up.

^.^
As opposed to the Republicans, who will nuisance everyone with their noise, but then not compromise.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
In the end the Democrats will make a compromise, but first they need to nuisance everyone with their noise.
Think this about sums it all up.

^.^
As opposed to the Republicans, who will nuisance everyone with their noise, but then not compromise.


I see keeping the tax rates the same as a compromise. I would have much rather seen rates cut and government spending cut as well to offset those tax rate cuts. A nice 20-25% cut across the board would have been a good boost to the economy.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I see keeping the tax rates the same as a compromise. I would have much rather seen rates cut and government spending cut as well to offset those tax rate cuts. A nice 20-25% cut across the board would have been a good boost to the economy.
Hasn't that been done effectively during Obama's honeymoon period with all those tax credits? And did it boost the economy? As I see it billions have gone into the Banks, who technically should have made some of those billions available to your man in the street, except Banks just did the opposite. They tightened up their purses. End result is that those Big Banks are now richer than ever, and your poor man poorer than before and some lost their properties to the banks as well. The banking system needs to be fixed so that one can get your old building societies that operated right in the communities where the "boosting of the economy" can be activated.

I was very disappointed with the last changes of the Banking Act, as it served to strengthen their control of the economy in their interest, rather than the interest of the economy.
Related topics
Go Sarah, Go
Markets Responding to Possible Obama Win?
Congratulations President Obama
Plan to Strengthen the Economy
Obama Embraces Tax Cheats
Economists Object to Obama's $Trillion+ Spending Plan
Should Obama and Dems Limit Charitable Giving?
Things only a Republican could believe
Could Democrats loose Obama's former Senate seat?
Thanks Obama for the working class tax cuts
Vote against Censorship of the World Internet
Please vote against ACTA - Europe's equivalent of SOPA
Coming out and the people that come with it
Is this the reason why Romney lost?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.