AP: Attacks from right take toll on Obama's tax plan

[Glaber]

[B]AP
Attacks from right take toll on Obama's tax plan[/B]
[release]A growing chorus of conservative criticism is prompting some House members to rethink the $850 billion package of tax cuts and extended jobless benefits that President Barack Obama negotiated with top Republicans in Congress.

The attacks are unlikely to derail the measure, which now goes to the House after the Senate passed it Wednesday, 81-19. But they underscore the difficulty of building centrist coalitions after an election in which tea party conservatives ousted many Democrats and some veteran Republicans who were seen as too willing to compromise with opponents.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and the Tea Party Patriots have denounced the tax plan, which previously was criticized mainly by liberals as a giveaway to the wealthy. The new reproach from conservatives is that the package would swell the federal debt while failing to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 by then-President George W. Bush.

"We're going to run trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see with no grown-ups ... to say we ought to stop doing it," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Capitol insiders predict the full Congress will pass the tax plan before Jan. 1, when almost every American's income tax rates would go up if a new law isn't in place. But House passage this week seems a bit less certain than before, and Obama's supporters are watching anxiously to see how many opponents on the right will join those on the left.

"The longer we wait, the harder it's going to be," said Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who is leaning against the package. He said House leaders probably are close to assembling enough support to pass it, but many GOP lawmakers are hearing from constituents who follow commentators such as Limbaugh.

The radio talk show host says the package should cut taxes, not leave them at the Bush-era levels.

The group Tea Party Patriots also urges the tax package's defeat. The legislation was crafted in secret, the group's petition says, and it fails to kill the estate tax, a goal of many hard-right groups.

But other tea party groups, including Freedomworks, support the tax compromise. Freedomworks, headed by former House Republican Dick Armey, says conservatives should be pleased to see the Bush tax cuts extended for another two years when Democrats still control Congress and the White House.

The tax cut debate is splitting Republicans at several levels. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticized the plan Tuesday in a column for USA Today.

"Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November," Romney wrote, "it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement." It will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt, he said, "when we are already drowning in red ink."

Another possible presidential contender, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., defended the tax measure in a Senate speech Tuesday. To oppose it, he said, "is to advocate for a tax increase," because a congressional impasse would allow all the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled on Jan. 1.

A new, more Republican Congress would probably restore them next year retroactive to Jan. 1, but workers might still see smaller paychecks for weeks or months because of higher withholdings reflecting the higher pre-Bush tax rates and smaller credits and deductions for children, college tuition and other expenses.

The Obama-backed plan would extend all those tax cuts, for rich and poor alike, for two years. It would trim Social Security payroll taxes and extend unemployment benefits for a year. It also would continue a number of tax breaks for business investments.

The plan restores the estate tax at a lower level — 35 percent and exempting the first $5 million — than many Democrats want. House Democratic leaders are weighing efforts to increase the rate to 45 percent and exempt only the first $3.5 million when the measure reaches their chamber.

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, who negotiated the tax package with the White House, warned Tuesday that it is "not subject to being reopened."

House staffers in both parties say no firm count of likely votes for the tax measure has been taken. One top Democratic aide guessed that perhaps 100 Democrats would support the measure. That would require Republicans to provide more than half the votes to reach the 218 needed for passage.

Conservative groups opposing the tax measure include the Club for Growth. Other influential critics include Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a tea party favorite; Jeff Flake of Arizona, a prominent critic of pork barrel spending; and John Campbell of California, a certified public accountant.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a widely discussed article last week saying Obama's plan would be a political coup for his 2012 re-election hopes, because the expensive package would stimulate the economy enough to bring down unemployment.

Prominent conservative supporters of the tax package include House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Americans for Tax Reform.

Boehner, who will become House speaker when the new Congress convenes next month, would suffer a big setback if the tax package fails. The criticism from the right clearly makes him and his allies nervous.

Boehner told CBS' "60 Minutes" that he refuses to say he compromised with the White House, preferring to say they found "common ground."

On tax and spending questions, House Republicans "are on a pretty short leash," Boehner said. "If we don't deliver what the American people are demanding, they'll throw us out of here in a heartbeat."[/release]
Source: [url]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGaUxMmg82tPrRpE_QTqX6htpvig?docId=46e9db5650494f36979ad169f7d185d6[/url]

In that last paragraph, Boehner doesn't know how right he is.

[Xen Tricks]

Maybe we'd be less in debt if we didn't constantly cut taxes. You know, just a thought.

[Hail Satan]

Now if the taxcuts were extended only for people under $250,000 that would be great congress.

[Glaber]

You don't pay for Tax cuts. Why does it seem like you think we do, Xen?

what we really need to cut is spending, maybe even shut down congress for a month.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720330]You don't pay for Tax cuts. Why does it seem like you think we do, Xen?

what we really need to cut is spending, maybe even shut down congress for a month.[/QUOTE]

Well that point went over your head. I mean, more taxes/less tax cuts = more influx money for the government = more budget = less debt

and yea, let's cut that defense budget down some

[Jimpyy]

This country could not survive without taxes. George Washington figured that out. If Republicans want to keep a massive nuke program, a massive army, and stay inbedded in the Middle East for a long period of time, they need tax money.

The only reason I see Republicans doing this is so they can say they did it when it comes to the next election. It's like the Republicans want propaganda, not successful policy/law measures.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720330]You don't pay for Tax cuts. Why does it seem like you think we do, Xen?

what we really need to cut is spending, maybe even shut down congress for a month.[/QUOTE]

Spending will happen whether or not congress is active. Shutting it down will only stop non-discretionary spending.

[Nikota]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720355]Well that point went over your head. I mean, more taxes/less tax cuts = more influx money for the government = more budget = less debt

and yea, let's cut that defense budget down some[/QUOTE]

Pft, its only like 700 billion dollars.

[Glaber]

That explains your side, but here's mine.

More Spending/ income to the government (Currently)= More debt

or in other words, the government is spending more than it takes in.

Tax cuts alone won't do a thing, it needs to be tied with Government spending cuts too.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720474]That explains your side, but here's mine.

More Spending/ income to the government (Currently)= More debt

or in other words, the government is spending more than it takes in.

Tax cuts alone won't do a thing, it needs to be tied with Government spending cuts too.[/QUOTE]

Tax cuts alone would do worse than nothing. Cutting spending in addition to moderately raising taxes would likely help our situation quite a bit. There's an obvious direct correlation between more taxes and more money for the government, more so than the theoretical economy boost from tax cuts that doesn't really seem to exist seeing as how this country has some of the lowest taxes in the world and is trillions of dollars in debt.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720474]That explains your side, but here's mine.

More Spending/ income to the government (Currently)= More debt

or in other words, the government is spending more than it takes in.

Tax cuts alone won't do a thing, it needs to be tied with Government spending cuts too.[/QUOTE]

Yes but we probably disagree on what needs spending cuts.

[Glaber]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720527]Tax cuts alone would do worse than nothing. Cutting spending in addition to moderately raising taxes would likely help our situation quite a bit. There's an obvious direct correlation between more taxes and more money for the government, more so than the theoretical economy boost from tax cuts that doesn't really seem to exist seeing as how this country has some of the lowest taxes in the world and is trillions of dollars in debt.[/QUOTE]

It's in debt due to runaway spending.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720644]It's in debt due to runaway spending.[/QUOTE]

(yes on national defense)

And you're missing my point here. Yes governmental spending is contributing heavily to the debt. But it would less so if we just plain had more money. We're not going to get more money by reducing the tax rate, i.e. the main lifeline of a government. This is a problem that is hurt, not helped, by lower taxes, and it's intertwined with it. The people want the government to spend on shit they want (and not on stuff they don't want but other people want), but they don't want to pay for it. This obviously does not work.

[CabooseRvB]

I am a tax. I am only a tax.

And I'm sitting over here so the rich people can relax.

EDIT: While the rich people start hiding their cash. I am sitting over here and depraving all of the pooooor.

[Nikota]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720644]It's in debt due to runaway spending.[/QUOTE]

And cutting taxes for the rich. Hell some of the largest corporations in the united states don't even pay a cent of taxes.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720644]It's in debt due to runaway spending.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget]Look at how much money the dept of defense gets compared to every other dept[/url]

[sloppy_joes]

[QUOTE=Nikota;26720788]And cutting taxes for the rich. Hell some of the largest corporations in the united states don't even pay a cent of taxes.[/QUOTE]

Prove it.

[Camundongo]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26720474]That explains your side, but here's mine.

More Spending/ income to the government (Currently)= More debt

or in other words, the government is spending more than it takes in.

Tax cuts alone won't do a thing, it needs to be tied with Government spending cuts too.[/QUOTE]

Well, tax cuts would make that worse, and cutting both taxes and spending would give the same situation the US is in now.

You're looking at either cutting spending and keeping taxes the same, or increasing taxes and keeping spending the same, both of which will be unpopular. A rather tricky problem, sadly.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26720949]Prove it.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812[/url]

[CabooseRvB]

They end up doing right-offs on 99% of it.

[sloppy_joes]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720985][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812[/url][/QUOTE]

Notice how the article only states "pays no income tax". It still pays taxes, just under a different name.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States[/url]

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26721052]Notice how the article only states "pays no income tax". It still pays taxes, just under a different name.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States[/url][/QUOTE]

Still, they completely skirt tax law and use loopholes to get out of paying millions.

[sloppy_joes]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26721098]Still, they completely skirt tax law and use loopholes to get out of paying millions.[/QUOTE]
There is obviously some logical explanation for this, maybe that figure includes small businesses, and those businesses pay no taxes because of tax credits or something.
I doubt they would just pay no federal income taxes for no reason.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26721154]There is obviously some logical explanation for this, maybe that figure includes small businesses, and those businesses pay no taxes because of tax credits or something.
I doubt they would just pay no federal income taxes for no reason.[/QUOTE]

[quote]The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues.

Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."[/quote]

Tax havens, look them up. Also what would being a small business have to do with this?

[sloppy_joes]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26721192]Tax havens, look them up. Also what would being a small business have to do with this?[/QUOTE]

Relatively small corporations is what I meant.

[quote=definition of tax haven]
A tax haven is a country or territory where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all.[/quote]
Once again, there are reasons for the lack of taxes, it's not just the company getting it's back scratched.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26721254]Relatively small corporations is what I meant.

Once again, there are reasons for the lack of taxes, it's not just the company getting it's back scratched.[/QUOTE]

Did I ever imply that? The company not paying taxes isn't because the government directly lets them, it's because they take advantage of tax code loopholes and abuse tax havens. It's the corporation's fault, not (entirely) the governments.

[Glaber]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720719](yes on national defense)

And you're missing my point here. Yes governmental spending is contributing heavily to the debt. But it would less so if we just plain had more money. We're not going to get more money by reducing the tax rate, i.e. the main lifeline of a government. This is a problem that is hurt, not helped, by lower taxes, and it's intertwined with it. The people want the government to spend on shit they want (and not on stuff they don't want but other people want), but they don't want to pay for it. This obviously does not work.[/QUOTE]

well it might help didn't spend like they already have the money they think they would be getting through taxes.

And the Runaway spending isn't just on national defense
For example, (Pleases excuse the Bias of the source)
[quote=heritage.org]The Ugly Details

The Senate omnibus bill’s offenses go well beyond its overall cost and size. It would spend more than $1 billion to begin implementing the unpopular and unaffordable Obamacare law, which a federal court has ruled unconstitutional. The bill also includes a number of anti-energy policies that make it unnecessarily difficult to tap into America’s domestic energy supply, wastes $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on climate change initiatives, and defunds activities for vital nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain.

And, in what has become a grand holiday tradition, the Senate stuffed the bill with more than 6,000 earmarks, including:

[B] * $450,000 for the World Food Prize in Des Moines, Iowa;
* $500,000 for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Boston;
* $100,000 for YouthCare in Seattle;
* $550,000 to rehabilitate Beacham Street in Massachusetts;
* $300,000 to renovate the Josephine Bakhita House in Wilmington, Delaware;
* $150,000 to renovate the Tibbits Opera House in Michigan;
* $500,000 for streetscaping in Porter County, Indiana;
* $200,000 to install solar panels at the Community Food Bank, Inc., in Arizona;
* $700,000 to reconstruct Norwood Drive in Pennsylvania;
* $500,000 for Denver Bike Sharing;
* 100,000 for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Transportation Museum in Columbus, Mississippi;
[I] * $3.5 million to research Formosan Subterranean Termites in New Orleans;[/I]
[I] * $1 million for peanut research in Athens and Tifton, Georgia;[/I]
[I] * $500,000 for oyster safety in Florida;[/I]
* $600,000 for the Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail in North Dakota;
* $750,000 for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Project in California;
* $125,000 to develop a walking trail in Mississippi;
* $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic Trail in Wisconsin;
* $250,000 for Pigeon Point Lighthouse in California;[/B] and

While fully funding Obamacare and earmarks, the Senate once again failed to find to room to adequately fund defense. This risks leaving our troops ill prepared to defend the nation at home and abroad.[/quote]

Source: [url]http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/15/senate-omnibus-bill-nearly-2000-pages-of-runaway-spending-and-pork/[/url]

[Lone_Star94]

Lol, permanent tax cuts to the rich. Man, they are fucking stupid.

[Xen Tricks]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26721645]well it might help didn't spend like they already have the money they think they would be getting through taxes.

And the Runaway spending isn't just on national defense
For example, (Pleases excuse the Bias of the source)

Source: [url]http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/15/senate-omnibus-bill-nearly-2000-pages-of-runaway-spending-and-pork/[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]
While fully funding Obamacare and earmarks, the Senate once again failed to find to room to adequately fund defense. This risks leaving our troops ill prepared to defend the nation at home and abroad.[/quote]
I'm trying to ignore but seriously there are people that think defense is under funded? Ugh my heart....

And yes earmarks and pork are large problems in bills, you'll get millions of dollars of favors to PACs and companies and other supporters of the politician. Many people pledge to cut down on the pork but it seems like no one actually does.

Also oysters are an important part of the seafood marketplace, I can understand protecting them. Most of these seem like public improvement projects though, and other social goods. I'd like to see a highlighting of non social earmarks as a comparison.

e: [quote]The bill also includes a number of anti-energy policies that make it unnecessarily difficult to tap into America’s domestic energy supply, wastes $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on climate change initiatives[/quote]

Unghgnghgn. Come on please you can find better than this this is just shameful. Calling work towards alternative energy sources and not just drilling more "anti-energy". Your kind has an amazing way with words.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Glaber;26721645]well it might help didn't spend like they already have the money they think they would be getting through taxes.

And the Runaway spending isn't just on national defense
For example, (Pleases excuse the Bias of the source)

Source: [url]http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/15/senate-omnibus-bill-nearly-2000-pages-of-runaway-spending-and-pork/[/url][/QUOTE]
Hey would you look at that, congressmen trying to help out their constituents.

also fuck the heratige foundation.