Wish I could say this was surprising:
After pushing the government to brink of shutdown last week, Republican Congressional leaders are now preparing to push America to the edge of default by refusing to increase the nation’s debt limit without first getting Democrats to concede to large spending cuts.
But while the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion.
Can any Republicans out there seriously say with a straight face that the House GOP has the country’s best interest in mind? If John Boehner and Eric Cantor were real public officials with a real grownup sense of responsibility that usually accompanies those in office, then the debt ceiling would be raised without negotiations. After all protecting the economy from economic collapse is…really important.
But of course, Cantor and Boehner aren’t grownups and have no grownup sense of responsibility. They ask for a ridiculously high amount of tax cuts, while agreeing to a disproportionally low amount of revenue increases. And then when the President finally agrees to that…NOPE! Not good enough!
Or at least that seems to be what the latest census bureau information indicates. From Ezra Klein’s blog:
Arguments over income taxes tend to get bogged down in arguments about who is really “rich.” And what you hear then is that rich in Ohio and rich in New York City are different. But how different?
According to the Census Bureau, only 6.3 percent of New York City’s households pulled in more than $200,000. So if you’re a household making $250,000 or more, you’re easily in the top 5 percent — even in New York City.
Take that Republican demagoguery!
One of the central republican retorts any time discussion of taxing the rich is brought up is that someone who is “rich” somewhere “normal ” like Kansas City wouldn’t be considered “rich” in a more expensive place like New York. But as the data above shows that someone in New York city that makes $250,000 or more still makes a lot more than most people in their geographic area. Sure they might not be able to live the glamorous “New York” life style but they still earn more than enough to take care of themselves.
Of course, this data only shows the upper class as defined by New York city, but considering that NYC is regularly quoted as the city with one of the highest, if not the highest living expenses it should be a suitable representation of expensive towns.
I smell a worse person in the world award in Senator Kyl’s near future…
The jackass says :
Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.
“[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes,” said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to — if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”
So we can’t spend $30 million to help the unemployed but we can spend $687 billion on tax cuts for wealthy Americans. This is your Republican party America…
If anyone wanted a prime example of someone placing their ideology over reality this is one if I ever saw it.
Dylan Matthews, on Ezra Klein’s blog, produces a crap ton of research that disproves the one of the major myths (see lies) pushed by the free market ideology. Namely, the idea that raising taxes will cause people to move to another, lower taxed, state.
Of course, anyone who sat down and thought about this for more than half a second could have probably dismissed this silly idea by themselves.
Despite what conservatives believe, people don’t govern their lives exclusively by monetary decisions. While it might be “profitable” to move from one state to another, people have emotional and social investments in the places they live now. Are mommy and daddy going to pack up the family and pull little Jenny out of school and away from all her friends just so they can move from a 5.4 tax rate to a 4.9 rate? Probably not. Sure, Jenny could probably make new friends, but when you take into consideration finding a quality school, finding a new job (assuming there are jobs available no doubt a BIG if), buying a new house, moving away from family, oh and by the way WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN KANSAS?…the social implications begin to far outweigh the economic.
Of course, this is assuming that moving from state to state would produce a net positive economic impact. Moving is expensive, especially moving to another state that might be on the other side of the country. Can you find a job that pays you a comparable wage…hell can you even find another job? What’s the cost of living ,etc, etc. I could sit here all day and list negative economic costs.
The Bottom line here is that the life of an American is a lot more than just a number in an excel sheet. It doesn’t take common sense to figure out bullshit like this, just normal sense.
OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD DEMOCRATS ARE RAISING TAXES!
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!
Republicans are notorious for wanting to have their cake and eat it too. When Democrats first proposed health care reform Republicans cried “it’s too expensive…the deficit is already too high”. When Democrats promised to make any health care bill deficit neutral, ie paid for without deficit spending, Republicans cried “Oh no, you can’t limit our tax breaks for the supremely wealthy.” Now Democrats have proposed a minor surtax on families in the top tax bracket. “That’s class warfare! Rich people can’t afford it! No more taxes” cry Republicans.
From the sound of it you’d think democrats were planing to levy some huge tax on the American people. That has to be true right? Well here’s the proposed surtax:
Starting in 2011, a family making $500,000 would have to pay $1,500 in additional income tax to help subsidize coverage for the uninsured. A family making $1 million would have to pay $9,000.
Yep, an extra $9,000 a year on millionaires.
This my friends is the health care tax Republicans are trying to kill health care reform over.
From Congressman Pat McHenry (R) on the stupidity of the Republican party:
The most urgent question is the meaning of economic conservatism. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. “Marginal tax rates are the lowest they’ve been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts,” he said. “The people’s desires have changed, but we’re still stuck in our old issue set.”
See, I’m not the only one who thinks that the Republican are full of it.
Okay, this is my last post related to teabaggers. (I think) But it would be a crime if I didn’t link to Bruce Bartlett’s latest column in Forbes which deals with teabaggers and the conservative deficit hypocrisy.
First, many protesters implicitly assume that the deficit has increased solely as a result of Barack Obama’s policies. But in fact, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a deficit of more than $1 trillion this year back in January, before any of Obama’s policies had been enacted, and a cumulative deficit of $4.3 trillion through 2019. (CBO made no assumptions about what his policies might be in making its projection.)
It’s true that projected deficits have gotten larger since January. But much of this resulted from deteriorating economic conditions that would have occurred even if John McCain were president. Moreover, it is absurd to assume that McCain would not have enacted any stimulus programs had he been elected…
I strongly suspect that many of those that loudly denounced the Obama stimulus package for its impact on the deficit would have cheered the McCain stimulus package even though it would have increased the deficit by about the same amount.
Proof of this proposition is that there were no tea parties during the years when George W. Bush was turning the surpluses of the Clinton years into massive deficits. Indeed, if concerns about deficits are the primary motivation for this week’s tax protests, then these same people should have been holding demonstrations of support for Bill Clinton in 2000 when the federal government ran a budget surplus of 2.4% of the gross domestic product–equivalent to a surplus of $336 billion this year.
The truth is that the greatest addition to national indebtedness occurred in 2003 when Bush rammed through the Republican Congress a massive expansion of Medicare to provide drug benefits even though the system was already broke….
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. That only comes from having credibility gained by the correct presentation of facts and analysis and a willingness to be even-handed–criticizing one’s own side when it is wrong and not only speaking up when the other party does the same thing.
(h/t) Economix via Bitch Steele