Obama caves, agrees to give up Democrat tax increases

[Little-Acorn]

President Obama has agreed to give up the tax increases that Democrats had insisted on during the Bush administration, to take place at the end of this month. Obama also said he wanted to cut the Social Security tax, for one year only (?), without saying how he would pay for it. Continuing the present low income tax rates has historically paid for itself by increasing economic activity and thus the amount of income available to tax. But cutting the Social Security tax won't produce any more revenue for SS.

Elections have consequences. It's nice to finally get some that benefit the country after the 2010 election, after all the grief that were the consequences of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Now, Republicans had better hold the line against any other Democrat tax increases, and start cutting down spending and unconstitutional programs. After Republicans' wild spending of 2000-2006, they have a lot to answer for, and are very much on probation. Time for them to become conservative instead, and stay that way. Then they might stay in office.

--------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html

Tax-cut deal reached between Obama, Republicans

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2010; 7:02 PM

President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed Monday to a tentative deal that would extend for two years all the Bush-era income tax breaks set to expire on Dec. 31, continue unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months and cut payroll taxes for workers to encourage employers to start hiring.

The deal has been in the works for more than a week and represents a concession by Obama to political reality: Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to extend only the expiring income tax breaks that benefit the middle class. The White House estimates that the proposed agreement would prevent typical families from facing annual tax increases of about $3,000, starting Jan. 1.

[Thunderknuckles]

Now, Republicans had better hold the line against any other Democrat tax increases, and start cutting down spending and unconstitutional programs. After Republicans' wild spending of 2000-2006, they have a lot to answer for, and are very much on probation.

Damn right :clap:

[fj1200]

I think the Reps caved. A one-year extension will only be extending the uncertainty for another year. Unless we get some job growth BO will claim that tax cuts for the rich have zero economic benefit, temporary cuts have been shown to be historically useless as an incentive for investment.

They need to start pounding a permanent extension as soon as the new Congress is seated.

Does this include extending cap gain and dividend rates?

[Little-Acorn]

I think the Reps caved. A one-year extension will only be extending the uncertainty for another year.

I believe it's two years. After which the Republican majorities (and Prez I hope) can make them permanent.

Ain't nothin certain in politics.

[red states rule]

Check out how the liberal moonbats at the Huff and Puff post are reacting to the deal

These people still do not understand they lost the election


http://constitutionclub.org/2010/12/06/huffpo-obama-caved-so-fast-it-scared-the-bats/

[fj1200]

I believe it's two years. After which the Republican majorities (and Prez I hope) can make them permanent.

Ain't nothin certain in politics.

True, but my main beef is the uselessness of temporary tax cuts. It'll be interesting to see if the markets take a hit today.

[Little-Acorn]

True, but my main beef is the uselessness of temporary tax cuts.

OK, then if you really don't like them, you can send me the cash you wouldn't be sending to the Fed for those two years instead.

As I said, they will likely become permanent two years from now.

Don't become a member of the "iffen it ain't perfect then it ain't shit" crowd. The government isn't going to become conservative overnight. Either they'll do it in steps, or they won't do it at all. Which do you prefer?

[fj1200]

OK, then if you really don't like them, you can send me the cash you wouldn't be sending to the Fed for those two years instead.

As I said, they will likely become permanent two years from now.

Don't become a member of the "iffen it ain't perfect then it ain't shit" crowd. The government isn't going to become conservative overnight. Either they'll do it in steps, or they won't do it at all. Which do you prefer?

Is the point of the tax cuts to get the economy moving again and spur private sector job growth or is it to get BO to cave in to our tax cut demand?

If it's the former, which I'm sure you'd agree with, then temporary tax cuts will not have the impact that permanent cuts would have. "Likely becoming permanent" is not as good as permanent.

I think they could have done better. k?

[red states rule]

So to keep tax cuts for the epople who are still working the Republicans gave Obama 13 MORE MONTHS of unemployment benefits??

Given that some have already got 99 weeks of benefits - the government is now going to pay people not to work for THREE YEARS???????

Well that should keep the unemplyment rate right where it is for the next year and help raise the deficit

[BoogyMan]

Businesses are not going to start hiring when the government just put them on the hook for covering 13 more months of costs for those whom they no longer employ.

[red states rule]

Businesses are not going to start hiring when the government just put them on the hook for covering 13 more months of costs for those whom they no longer employ.

and businesses will not hire since they are still facing the added costs of Obamacare

Meanwhile the liberal media put their usual spin on the debate






On Tuesday's Andrea Mitchell Reports, Republican Senator Judd Gregg had to remind Andrea Mitchell that hardworking Americans' money belongs to them and not the government, after the NBC reporter pressed him to "justify" a "larger tax cut for those who really don't need it."

On to discuss the tax cut deal in Congress, Gregg explained to Mitchell that the "problem we have as a government today isn't that we're an under-taxed people. It's that we're an overspending government." However an undeterred Mitchell then went on to cite billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as saying "at a time of deficit crisis that they don't need these tax breaks," to which Gregg zinged back: "If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates want to send us money, we'll take it."

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/12/07/nbcs-mitchell-republican-how-do-you-justify-tax-cut-those-who-dont#ixzz17TR1NuTU

[red states rule]

I give to hand it to liberals - they are masters at showing their ingorance when it comes to taxes

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzIr8z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzIr8z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>