PDA

View Full Version : Redstate: the 40 senate republicans who voted for the Obama stimulus.




Agorism
01-01-2013, 04:32 PM
Redstate: the 40 senate republicans who voted for the Obama stimulus.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/01/the-house-must-act-now/


So Republicans agreed to sell their souls to the devil for what? It is being widely reported that they traded $41 in tax hikes for every dollar of spending cuts. But it’s even worse than that. This ratio comes from the CBO, which scores H.R. 8 as a $620 billion tax hike and a $15 billion spending cut. Keep in mind that the CBO works with a ten-year budget frame. So if Congress agrees to spend $100 billion in one day, yet offsets the cost over 10 years of projected savings, they would score it as deficit neutral.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAdnwql6bMo&feature=youtu.be

Brett85
01-01-2013, 04:35 PM
For the people opposed to this bill, what exactly is your proposal to prevent massive tax increases on every single American? Is it not better to extend the Bush tax cuts for 99% of the American people than to allow them to expire for 100% of the American people?

Agorism
01-01-2013, 04:37 PM
For the people opposed to this bill, what exactly is your proposal to prevent massive tax increases on every single American? Is it not better to extend the Bush tax cuts for 99% of the American people than to allow them to expire for 100% of the American people?

Boehner's plan B was fine so long as it did not increase the debt ceiling.

Which it most surely would have.

Agorism
01-01-2013, 04:38 PM
Besides every bill is bad. Even if you superficially think it's a good bill, there always ends up being a bunch of hidden stuff in it.

If it's not vetted for an extended period of time, then it's best to vote against it even if it seems good.

Aratus
01-01-2013, 04:39 PM
he bolted becuz his "plan B" was not in sync with mitch McC's plan A?

SpreadOfLiberty
01-01-2013, 04:40 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00251#position

Agorism
01-01-2013, 04:40 PM
A bill can't be passed in the dead of night, and expect anything good to come of it.

It needs to be vetted by Grover's group, and others, etc, and put on the internet, etc before anything should be voted on.

Aratus
01-01-2013, 04:45 PM
did Mitch McConnell DELIBERATELY agree to go along with our sitting POTUS in the Senate
knowing full well that ole House Speaker Boehner was about to let all the House GOP folk bolt?
if the compromise basically isn't, is McConnell letting Boehner be the heavy in this tagteam?

Brett85
01-01-2013, 05:33 PM
Boehner's plan B was fine so long as it did not increase the debt ceiling.

Which it most surely would have.

Of course the bill isn't good, but it's far better than allowing all of the tax cuts to expire.

This particular bill also doesn't contain an increase in the debt ceiling.

dillo
01-01-2013, 05:48 PM
Who voted against it

angelatc
01-01-2013, 05:54 PM
Of course the bill isn't good, but it's far better than allowing all of the tax cuts to expire.

This particular bill also doesn't contain an increase in the debt ceiling.

If we're running a deficit, then either spending has to stop or taxes have to go up. The Bush tax cuts were implemented because we were running a surplus, something that some wide people saw as more dangerous than the deficit. After all, if Washington spends like this when we're bankrupt, what would they do if they were flush with cash?

Greenspan wanted a circuit breaker in the tax cut bill, one that would have rescinded the damned things as soon as the dot-com bubble popped. But the GOP wanted nothing to do with that, so they cut taxes, but when the wars broke out and the economy started to fail, they did nothing to replace the lost revenue, and in fact, as we all know, went on to spend more than ever.

angelatc
01-01-2013, 06:04 PM
NAYs ---8


Bennet (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Paul (R-KY)
Rubio (R-FL)
Shelby (R-AL)







Not Voting - 3


DeMint (R-SC)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)




Surprised to see that Rubio broke rank.

Brett85
01-01-2013, 07:06 PM
If we're running a deficit, then either spending has to stop or taxes have to go up. The Bush tax cuts were implemented because we were running a surplus, something that some wide people saw as more dangerous than the deficit. After all, if Washington spends like this when we're bankrupt, what would they do if they were flush with cash?

Greenspan wanted a circuit breaker in the tax cut bill, one that would have rescinded the damned things as soon as the dot-com bubble popped. But the GOP wanted nothing to do with that, so they cut taxes, but when the wars broke out and the economy started to fail, they did nothing to replace the lost revenue, and in fact, as we all know, went on to spend more than ever.

I don't agree that raising taxes leads to increased revenue. I think that increasing taxes as drastically as will happen if the Bush tax cuts expire will cause so much damage to the economy that it will cause a large reduction in revenue to the government, making the deficit far bigger than it is now.

pcosmar
01-01-2013, 07:11 PM
I don't agree that raising taxes leads to increased revenue. I think that increasing taxes as drastically as will happen if the Bush tax cuts expire will cause so much damage to the economy that it will cause a large reduction in revenue to the government, making the deficit far worse than it is now.

LOL
:(

The deficit can't get any worse. only bigger.
That much is pretty much guaranteed

oyarde
01-01-2013, 07:13 PM
I don't agree that raising taxes leads to increased revenue. I think that increasing taxes as drastically as will happen if the Bush tax cuts expire will cause so much damage to the economy that it will cause a large reduction in revenue to the government, making the deficit far worse than it is now. I agree with that. Do not know how I could vote for a bill with extra spending , probably have to just leave for a drink , or eight ...

Brett85
01-01-2013, 07:18 PM
LOL
:(

The deficit can't get any worse. only bigger.
That much is pretty much guaranteed

Yeah, that's what I meant. I edited it.

Brett85
01-01-2013, 07:20 PM
I agree with that. Do not know how I could vote for a bill with extra spending , probably have to just leave for a drink , or eight ...

I would vote for it on the basis that in two months I would vote against borrowing the money that is necessary to enact that new spending. If the Republicans simply vote against raising the debt ceiling in two months, they'll get massive spending cuts and a balanced budget immediately.

oyarde
01-01-2013, 08:05 PM
I would vote for it on the basis that in two months I would vote against borrowing the money that is necessary to enact that new spending. If the Republicans simply vote against raising the debt ceiling in two months, they'll get massive spending cuts and a balanced budget immediately. That makes me feel better anyway :). Going for another glass of wine .

matt0611
01-01-2013, 08:59 PM
The problem is Republicans decided to set a sunset date for the Bush tax cuts. Why did they do this? It was such a stupid move and this could have all been avoided if they never set a sunset date.

At least the tax cuts are permanent below 400K.

The whole tax code needs to be overhauled though, its a mess. Business income tax as well.

Brett85
01-01-2013, 09:02 PM
The problem is Republicans decided to set a sunset date for the Bush tax cuts. Why did they do this? It was such a stupid move and this could have all been avoided if they never set a sunset date.

Because they couldn't get enough votes to pass the tax cuts without making them temporary.

supermario21
01-01-2013, 09:19 PM
The Democrats are clearly angry about this, and now we've got all the leverage.

angelatc
01-01-2013, 09:22 PM
I don't agree that raising taxes leads to increased revenue. I think that increasing taxes as drastically as will happen if the Bush tax cuts expire will cause so much damage to the economy that it will cause a large reduction in revenue to the government, making the deficit far bigger than it is now.

I don't either, but the truth of the matter is exactly what I wrote. Of course, the economy then was much different than it is now, so it's apples and oranges. But using your logic, cutting taxes in an era of a budget surplus should have increased the surplus, and it didn't. Instead, the bubble popped.

Brett85
01-01-2013, 09:25 PM
But using your logic, cutting taxes in an era of a budget surplus should have increased the surplus, and it didn't. Instead, the bubble popped.

The surplus turned into a deficit because of expensive new wars and additional domestic spending, not because of the tax cuts. The tax cuts actually brought in additional revenue to the government.

angelatc
01-01-2013, 09:27 PM
The surplus turned into a deficit because of expensive new wars and additional domestic spending, not because of the tax cuts. The tax cuts actually brought in additional revenue to the government.

The surplus turned into a deficit because the dot-com bubble popped.

jj-
01-02-2013, 01:38 AM
The surplus turned into a deficit because the dot-com bubble popped.

And it popped due to monetary policy, not tax policy.

matt0611
01-02-2013, 06:40 AM
Because they couldn't get enough votes to pass the tax cuts without making them temporary.

OK then. That's a good reason, thanks for the correction, I didn't pay enough attention to politics back then.

ghengis86
01-02-2013, 06:53 AM
Because they couldn't get enough votes to pass the tax cuts without making them temporary.

I call BS on that justification (the standard reason you gave, not just you). You're telling me a D majority Senate and D pres. were able to make the tax cuts permanent, but an R majority house a pres. couldn't? If so, the GOP thinks much less of the average american's intelligence than I thought.

Anyhow, this whole thing is a farce. Wrapped in a joke. Surrounded by tragedy.

itshappening
01-02-2013, 07:36 AM
the reason they couldn't make it permanent in Bush's day was because of the Senate GOP "moderates" like Snowe and Collins, they couldnt get the votes but yeah it seems bullshit to me.

TC is just happy because his taxes haven't gone up. There is a lot of people celebrating this but whoever is taxed it's money out of the economy and that means it's. bad. Also, as Obama said "this is a first step". As Thatcher said socialism works until you run out of people to tax then all of a sudden you find that they consider you rich enough to pay more.

Far from protecting the "middle class" as Obama likes to say he is ensuring they're sitting ducks while also eliminating opportunity by clobbering businesses.

The other thing is, are the tax brackets linked to inflation? Probably not, meaning people will be dragged into higher brackets over time. 400k in 5 or 10 years is not the same as today. This is why the mantra about returning to over 250k tax bracket under clinton is stupid, 250k back then is like 500k now with all the mad money printing, for example gold has at least quadrupled in that time. And if hyper-inflation surfaces then 400k is what you'll be paying for a loaf of bread.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 08:30 AM
TC is just happy because his taxes haven't gone up. There is a lot of people celebrating this but whoever is taxed it's money out of the economy and that means it's. bad.

Of course it's bad, but it's all about limiting the damage. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts was never an option when you had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. I believed from the very beginning that the conservative position was to save the Bush tax cuts for as many Americans as possible, and I still stand by that. Voting "no" on this bill only would've caused there to be a massive tax increase for every single American. I simply don't understand the mentality that if we can't extend all of the tax cuts, that we have to allow all of them to expire. I believe in limiting the damage and saving as many of the tax cuts as possible. Someone like Paul Ryan has had a lot of bad votes over his career, but I don't believe this is one of them.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
01-02-2013, 09:01 AM
And it popped due to monetary policy, not tax policy.

And the dot-com bubble popped prior to the Bush tax cuts, and the dot-com bubble had less to do with monetary policy than an idiotic administration that thought it was cool to watch the stock market skyrocket instead of focus on actual indicators of economic growth. The Clinton Administration had a policy of buying into the Japanese stock market if the Dow/NASDAQ had a bad day to stimulate "confidence" in our markets instead of allowing for a natural correction.

When that policy stopped in late summer-early fall 2000, the market had corrected, and then went into a bit of free fall. It had very little to do with actual growth...then can 9/11 and consumer spending dried up...then came the stimuli and tax cuts ALONG with the moronic monetary policy of cutting rates...that led to the housing bubble.

angelatc
01-02-2013, 10:48 AM
I simply don't understand the mentality that if we can't extend all of the tax cuts, that we have to allow all of them to expire. I believe in limiting the damage and saving as many of the tax cuts as possible. Someone like Paul Ryan has had a lot of bad votes over his career, but I don't believe this is one of them.

The very mentality that it's ok to tax some people but not other people is part of the socialization of America. I'm an all-or-nothin' kind of girl. Those f*ckers wanted higher taxes, then let all of them pay higher taxes.

angelatc
01-02-2013, 10:54 AM
And the dot-com bubble popped prior to the Bush tax cuts, and the dot-com bubble had less to do with monetary policy than an idiotic administration that thought it was cool to watch the stock market skyrocket instead of focus on actual indicators of economic growth. The Clinton Administration had a policy of buying into the Japanese stock market if the Dow/NASDAQ had a bad day to stimulate "confidence" in our markets instead of allowing for a natural correction.

When that policy stopped in late summer-early fall 2000, the market had corrected, and then went into a bit of free fall. It had very little to do with actual growth...then can 9/11 and consumer spending dried up...then came the stimuli and tax cuts ALONG with the moronic monetary policy of cutting rates...that led to the housing bubble.

Greenspan was actually very concerned with the valuation of the stock market, and even took steps to try to control the growth, which is something that technically fell outside of his jurisdiction. In fact, that type of tinkering with the stock market is illegal, but as we all know, laws are just for the little people.

You really should read his biography. I couldn't count how many times my mouth dropped open.

HOLLYWOOD
01-02-2013, 11:42 AM
Of course it's bad, but it's all about limiting the damage.... You are very short-sighted... the problem with most Americans that buy into today's bullshit of the Washington DC Duopoly.

It's already projected that at the end of Obama's second term, the national debt will be over $21 Trillion. That means, just servicing the INTEREST on the National Debt will cost Americans $1 Trillion... and that's at the artificially induced low FED interest rates. Bernanke and the FED will have great difficulty in sterilizing the money printing. Low interest rates are killing retirees/Social Security Recipients, and those on fixed incomes.

This all equates to huge jumps in Inflation down the road... It always hurts the poor and middle classes the most. Something those "lower" classes seem to never recognize, until it hit's them like a 2x4 in the head. Government always plays the propaganda blame games through their media outlets to take the focus of the root cause.

Debt, Debt is the destruction to the economy and the independence of the individual... it also reciprocates loss of liberties and enforces tyranny, just like every other empire that ran the same course.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 11:53 AM
The very mentality that it's ok to tax some people but not other people is part of the socialization of America. I'm an all-or-nothin' kind of girl. Those f*ckers wanted higher taxes, then let all of them pay higher taxes.

Who wanted higher taxes? You're advocating that taxes should also go up on every American who didn't vote for Obama as well.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 11:54 AM
You are very short-sighted.

Yeah, I'm just as "short-sighted" as Ron Paul.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/did-ron-paul-vote-for-a-tax-in

Zippyjuan
01-02-2013, 12:43 PM
Consider the options. Pass it and one percent faces higher taxes. Don't pass it and 96% face higher taxes. A bad choice either way. And all of the spending issues got put off.

angelatc
01-02-2013, 12:46 PM
Who wanted higher taxes? You're advocating that taxes should also go up on every American who didn't vote for Obama as well.

Yes, I am. I am indeed. I hate this incrementalism nonsense.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 12:58 PM
Yes, I am. I am indeed. I hate this incrementalism nonsense.

And you apparently love the idea of taxes going up for every single American.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 12:59 PM
Consider the options. Pass it and one percent faces higher taxes. Don't pass it and 96% face higher taxes. A bad choice either way. And all of the spending issues got put off.

Yep, that was the choice.

angelatc
01-02-2013, 01:01 PM
And you apparently love the idea of taxes going up for every single American.

I didn't say that. I said that I'd absolutely prefer to see taxes going up on everybody instead of only picking a few victims. That certainly does not equate to "I'd pick high taxes over no taxes."

Zippyjuan
01-02-2013, 01:22 PM
I didn't say that. I said that I'd absolutely prefer to see taxes going up on everybody instead of only picking a few victims. That certainly does not equate to "I'd pick high taxes over no taxes."

I would agree with what you suggest. It is far easier (and why they do it that way) if you can say we will take care of things by having somebody else pay the bills- tax a small percent of people rather than a small tax increase on everybody. If the taxes applied equally to everybody, they become harder to raise. That is why some on this forum have suggest things like tarrifs over income taxes- the illusion that somebody other than themselves will be paying the taxes (which would not be true- they would just be more hidden in the prices of everything).

Brett85
01-02-2013, 01:31 PM
I would agree with what you suggest. It is far easier (and why they do it that way) if you can say we will take care of things by having somebody else pay the bills- tax a small percent of people rather than a small tax increase on everybody. If the taxes applied equally to everybody, they become harder to raise. That is why some on this forum have suggest things like tarrifs over income taxes- the illusion that somebody other than themselves will be paying the taxes (which would not be true- they would just be more hidden in the prices of everything).

Except that this wouldn't have been a small increase on everybody. It would've been a massive increase on everybody.

HOLLYWOOD
01-02-2013, 02:02 PM
Keep forgetting the Debt... that's hasn't been addressed.

DrHendricks
01-02-2013, 02:08 PM
To hear Obama come out today and say that this was a balanced approach to reducing the deficit beggars belief. I think TPTB want us to only debate the tax portion of this bill which only allows for debate on the merits of class warfare. The main crux of this bill is the complete lack of serious spending cuts. With the Democrats not willing to compromise at all, this bill should have been voted against by every Republican in Congress. The fact that 40 so called Republican senators and ~80 Republican representatives jumped ship is truly despicable. My congressional delegation consists of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat, all of which voted for this bill. I will campaign to remove all of them from Congress. The future of this country depends on it.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 02:43 PM
The fact that 40 so called Republican senators and ~80 Republican representatives jumped ship is truly despicable.

The fact that 40 Republican Senators and 80 Representatives wanted to stop tax increases for as many Americans as possible is "despicable?"

jtap
01-02-2013, 03:29 PM
I can't help but think that if they hadn't got this bill done that many of the sheeple might have actually woken up and taken notice of what the Government was doing and it would force more Libertarianism to come bubbling to the surface. I would then hope it would cause them to get more involved and care more about what is going on. I would be willing to pay higher taxes short term if it could help kickstart a revolution...but could it?

angelatc
01-02-2013, 03:36 PM
Except that this wouldn't have been a small increase on everybody. It would've been a massive increase on everybody.

As it should be.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 04:01 PM
As it should be.

Well, I just disagree. I'm in favor of lower taxes, not higher taxes.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 04:02 PM
"If 50% of the American people aren't paying any income taxes, that just means that we're halfway towards our goal of abolishing the income tax for everyone."

Ron Paul

Zippyjuan
01-02-2013, 04:03 PM
The point of sharing the pain is that it would make it harder to raise taxes in the first place. If I say I am going to raise somebody else's taxes, you are less likely to care than if I am going to raise your taxes.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 04:44 PM
The point of sharing the pain is that it would make it harder to raise taxes in the first place. If I say I am going to raise somebody else's taxes, you are less likely to care than if I am going to raise your taxes.

That's a good reason to support a flat tax proposal, but I still don't believe it's a good reason to support tax increases on hard working Americans.

jbauer
01-02-2013, 04:49 PM
Who wanted higher taxes? You're advocating that taxes should also go up on every American who didn't vote for Obama as well.

Yes, the Republicans should have let us go off the cliff. There is no reason to have given up on EVERY position and get NOTHING in return. This was the time to take a stand and say enough is enough. They chose not to do that. Heck in 2 months the Democrats wont even use lube when they're Fing us in the ass.

DrHendricks
01-02-2013, 04:50 PM
The fact that 40 Republican Senators and 80 Representatives wanted to stop tax increases for as many Americans as possible is "despicable?"

Selectively choosing who gets to foot Obama's bills is not a fair or rational solution. We got no spending cuts. No compromise from the Democrats. Dropping off the fiscal cliff would have seen real spending cuts go into effect. Now we have nothing, and the productive class gets to foot the bill.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 04:56 PM
Yes, the Republicans should have let us go off the cliff. There is no reason to have given up on EVERY position and get NOTHING in return. This was the time to take a stand and say enough is enough. They chose not to do that. Heck in 2 months the Democrats wont even use lube when they're Fing us in the ass.

You must not be a farmer or a small business owner if you think that we got "nothing" in return. The estate tax now has a 5 million exemption indexed to inflation with a 40% rate, and if Congress wouldn't have passed this bill it would've been a 1 million exemption with a 55% rate. Small family farmers will now be able to pass their farm on to their kids. The threshold for the top marginal rate went fron $250,000 to $450,000, which will save a lot of small businesses from paying higher taxes. The bill that was passed last night was extremely important for small businesses and small family farms.

jbauer
01-02-2013, 05:12 PM
You must not be a farmer or a small business owner if you think that we got "nothing" in return. The estate tax now has a 5 million exemption indexed to inflation with a 40% rate, and if Congress wouldn't have passed this bill it would've been a 1 million exemption with a 55% rate. Small family farmers will now be able to pass their farm on to their kids. The threshold for the top marginal rate went fron $250,000 to $450,000, which will save a lot of small businesses from paying higher taxes. The bill that was passed last night was extremely important for small businesses and small family farms.

Actually I'm both. I'm a small buisness owner we employ 6 people. I grew up on a farm and married a farmer daughter. We'll be inhertiting 4 farms. (I understand estate tax quite well given the work I do as well) The estate tax stuff doesn't mean $HIT if the ship sinks. Team "R" screwed the pooch on this one plain and simple.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 05:24 PM
Actually I'm both. I'm a small buisness owner we employ 6 people. I grew up on a farm and married a farmer daughter. We'll be inhertiting 4 farms. (I understand estate tax quite well given the work I do as well) The estate tax stuff doesn't mean $HIT if the ship sinks. Team "R" screwed the pooch on this one plain and simple.

I guess my view is still that this was a bad bill, but allowing all of the Bush tax cuts to expire would've been far worse. That's just the way I see it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

tmg19103
01-02-2013, 05:43 PM
You must not be a farmer or a small business owner if you think that we got "nothing" in return. The estate tax now has a 5 million exemption indexed to inflation with a 40% rate, and if Congress wouldn't have passed this bill it would've been a 1 million exemption with a 55% rate. Small family farmers will now be able to pass their farm on to their kids. The threshold for the top marginal rate went fron $250,000 to $450,000, which will save a lot of small businesses from paying higher taxes. The bill that was passed last night was extremely important for small businesses and small family farms.

They were never going to drop the estate tax exemption below its current $5MM and they never will. The $400k amount for higher taxes i could stomach if there were actual spending cuts, but there are not any.

And, the payroll tax goes up for all Americans. Make $50k a year and trying to raise a family? You just lost $1,000 in new taxes. That HURTS average Americans.

So all wage earners got screwed and nothing got cut.

Expect more of this. It's socialism in action.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 05:47 PM
And, the payroll tax goes up for all Americans. Make $50k a year and trying to raise a family? You just lost $1,000 in new taxes. That HURTS average Americans.

And how would killing this bill have preserved the payroll tax cut? It was set to expire anyway and expired before Congress voted for this bill.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 05:49 PM
They were never going to drop the estate tax exemption below its current $5MM and they never will.

I don't know what you mean by that. The estate tax was set to go back to 55% with a 1 million exemption, and that's what the Democrats wanted.

Brett85
01-02-2013, 07:00 PM
This comment on a different Red State article is pretty good.

"Set aside the messaging component. If the GOP had killed the deal, we would have lost every gain on taxes made in the last 10 years and gotten exactly ZERO in savings. Given that the 2001 and 2003 cuts were always due to sunset, we've managed to preserve *forever* 98 percent of what we achieved on ordinary income and more the half of what's been returned to the taxpayer on asset and investment income. And we did it without giving up the debt ceiling or sequester. Any way you call it, that's a huge win."

pcosmar
01-02-2013, 11:25 PM
Deck Chairs rearranged.
The Band is playing.

And there are still not enough life boats.