MIKULSKI STATEMENT ON SUPER COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION
From the office of U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski:
U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today issued the following statement on the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction:
“As families in Maryland and across the country get ready for the Thanksgiving holiday, they’re saying, ‘Where are we? Have we lost our way? Are we so mired in partisanship that we can’t seem to find a path forward?’
“The members of the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction were given an impossible mandate with an impossible timeline and they truly pursued their charge with due diligence. But I am disappointed that we could not reach a bipartisan agreement.
“We need a more frugal government that will reduce our deficit and reduce our debt. But the things that caused the debt and deficit should be the only things on the table. Our approach must be balanced like a three legged stool with responsible discretionary and military spending cuts; revenue; and reform that strengthens Medicare and Medicaid.
“At the same time must protect the Social Contract between the American people and their government. People who play by the rules and pay their dues through the payroll tax have earned and deserve a Social Security benefit that is reliable, undeniable, and inflation proof. That’s what they were promised.
“I oppose any changes that reduce Social Security benefits. Social Security should be revisited and reformed to ensure its safety and solvency. But Social Security did not cause our debt. It did not cause our deficit. It does not belong in the Super Committee.”
Rep. Andy Harris Statement on the Super Committee
From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
“I’m disappointed that the Super Committee wasn’t able to achieve even the minimal amount of deficit reduction,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Committee members like John Kerry refused to cut spending and instead tried to increase taxes on American job creators by one trillion dollars. Their unwillingness to comprise on tax increases will put us on a one-way path to a European-style debt crisis.”
Congressman Harris will appear live with Maynard Edwards and Cindy Mumby at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday on WAMD 970 AM.
Dear Asshat Harris – enjoy your one term in Congress.
Signed,
Thankfully Not In Your District
Congressman Harris will appear live with Maynard Edwards and Cindy Mumby at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday on WAMD 970 AM.
Its time to vote all incumbents out. What made anyone think that this so call SUPER committe would do anything. Congress hasn’t passed a budget in 3 years. All these elected officials have made the citizens so dependent on the government that no one will be willing to vote them out, less they give up the government tit. Welfare recipients are given credit cards now so as not to stigmatize them. Career welfare recipients should be stigmatized, maybe that would give them some incentive to better themselves.
WHOAMI: Ever heard of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996? “One of the reforms under this act was the Welfare-to-Work initiative, which required work in exchange for time limited financial assistance. Recipients of TANF, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, were required to work at least 20 hours per week, and the reform statute listed 12 authorized activities accepted to meet this requirement. According to reports, within 3 years of the reforms enactment, millions of Americans had moved from being dependent on welfare to being self-sufficient. In addition, agencies reported a reduction in the number of social welfare cases.”
Do you know who lead this reform?
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families was part of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. President Clinton was convinced by a Republican Congress and Senate to reform Welfare and balance the budget.
I had no idea you were a fan of Newt and the 1996 Republican Revolution?
No Paul, if the President does not sign, it does not become law. However, you do bring up a salient point: both parties were able to work together for the common good before the tea baggers destroyed our government with extreme partisan politics.
A fanciful fiction that President Clinton who in 1996 had both a Republican House and Senate achieved welfare reform all by his lonesome?
1996 was a Republican ascendancy which is very likely to be repeated in 2012 with all three branches going to the Republicans. Not because of the Tea Party but because the American people cannot withstand another 4 years President Obama.
I thought the President had a certain amount of time to sign into law or veto bills that had passed the house and senate. If the President took no action to either approve or veto those bills, then they became law without the President’s signature.
We will see PAUL. I think the American people will see that the Tea Party/GOP is wreaking this country for the benefit of the 1% and will vote them out of office.
Clinton, for all your irritations, was a moderate. The idea was a good one whoever thought of it. And Clinton signed it into law because it made sense and a lot of people liked the idea.
I liked the idea too. Not necessarily because I am a moderate or a liberal but because it was a good idea. And I also happen to believe it’s a good idea to live within your means by reducing spending where you can and raising revenue when necessary. While the Super Committee demonstrated more of the congressional tendency to not be able to work together, I will look forward to the President’s Veto of any legislation designed to prevent the automatic cuts from going into effect. And for the record, I work for the Department of Defense, and for my country, I would be willing to see our funding cut in order to restore integrity to our nation’s current budget mess.
PTBL; Go back and take a look at the bill in question. I believe that you will find that Clinton had no options as he he was facing a veto proof Congress at that time.
PTBL all the Tea Party wants to cut taxes and make the government smaller, give power back to the states and not the federal government.
I would not have a problem with that if that was the true motivation. The problem is that frequently the TEA party message is at odds with this. Canceling Social Security and Medicare would be consistent with this mission. I bet that a good number of TEA party members would be outraged by the suggestion!
When the TEA party attacks local education spending they are not returning control to the state or local level they are attempting to eliminate it.
When the TEA party backs the GOP exclusively and needs Grover Nordquist to tell them if it is OK or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire a day after he gos on 60 Minutes and claims the voters decide if you broke the pledge! This from a group that pushes for govt. transparency but does not see the purpose in disclosing who it’s donors are?
When the TEA party still can not admit that Gore was more fiscally conservative then Bush. When they back complete and utter morons like Christine O’Donnell for US Senate. It cheapens their message.
I heard someone on the radio say yesterday that people need to take their vote for president seriously. I do not care who you vote for but you need to seriously consider if you truly believe that who you vote for is competent to be president. This goes for both parties. Furthermore candidates need to pick VP candidates who are competent and capable of taking over.
So while I support the sentiment I think the organization has become nothing more then the GOP sock puppet!
@Cdev – You’re pretty much a liberal tool who cannot be honest about your progressive views.
Porter since you seem to call everyone names and a progressive, even when they are simply excercising an opinion, I will take this as a compliment. I am an independent who does not like having to be defined by a box. I vote accordingly for the best candidate not the party. I like how you disputed none of the substance and simply resorted to name calling.
Apparently you have missed the whole issue of the establishment Repubs trying to reign in the tea party Repubs CDEV. One of the reasons that there was no compromise on raising taxes this weak was because of the tea party as well. You can’t just brush them off because you don’t agree with them.
That actually illustrates my point. The whole super comittee was set up to reach a compromise. I would not view them not reaching one as a victory. A victory would be for a good balanced compromise we can all live with. In the 90’s we actually had the Clintonian blanced budget because democrats and republicans worked together and compromised. The GOP is using the TEA party to look like the boogie man to obstruct this. The principals where noble when it started but I fear it allowed itself to be curroppted when it became an exclusive GOP instead of focusing on fiscal conservatism in both parties. There are fiscal conservative dems but TEA partiers don’t support them? Why?
B to say the TEA party stopped a tax compromise is not realistic. Try Grover Norquisdt and the hold he has on 279 of the 289 republicans in congress.
DAVE and PAUL: I did go back and look at the bill would beg to differ with you. The GOP did not have a veto proof vote in the Senate. That is why President Clinton vetoed the first two bills he deemed too conservative. The president was able to work with the Senate Majority Whip, Trent Lott, to construct a compromise. That was due to the Congress acting as adults with the welfare of the Union in mind. The President was very much in charge of this PRWORA bill.
Keep in mind that our President Obama offered huge concessions to the Tea Party/GOP and they still blocked debt reduction. They did this because they are more interested in winning 2012 and promoting the welfare of billionaires than with us working stiffs.
The last time either party held a veto proof majority in the senate was in 65-67 before that it was the 30’s!
I find it comical that while implying welfare recipients are not stigmatized, you actively stigmatize them. Well done. And it probably slips right by most people.
If you pay attention to the person in front of you at a cash register, you will very easily see who has welfare and who doesn’t. It’s extremely obvious.
There’s plenty of stigma. Walk a mile in their shoes, friend.
Is it possible that credit card usage reduces cost (as printing paper vouchers is more expensive and reduces fraud and waste?
When did the French storm the Bastille? America is reaching its Bastille moment. Be ye Democrat or Republican ye are all of the same ilk – politician – living in fantasy lands, insulated from the rest of the world and in Maryland we have a great tendancy to help insulate our politicans by putting them back in office year after year after year. We applaud these do nothings when they come to our towns, if they ever come. We should be heaving rotten tomatoes and eggs upon them. Gone are the days when government officials worked together – now it’s all about winning the game and stealing our money with a smile. Both sides are guilty. Both sides are shameful.
BEL AIR FED: I do not believe that “Democrat or Republican ye are all of the same ilk”. What I see is the stated purpose of the GOP/Tea Party to win the presidency at any cost. If they destroy the county, so be it. Save your contempt for them, not the Democrats who have made a good faith attempt at a compromise. The real corruption is the lobbyists who undermine both parties with billions. The only way to save our Republic is election reform.
Harris is incapable of saying anything that is not a tea party talking point. His only interest is protecting billionaire tax breaks so we middle class can support their lavish life style. What do you expect from a doctor?
Harris is a fiscal conservative and Constitutionalist. The Tea Party folks are fiscal conservatives and believe the government should follow the Constitution. So it should come as no surprise that Harris has something in common with the Tea Party. In fact Harris has a lot in common with the vast majority of Americans.
Just like you Proud to Be Liberal have much in common with George Soros’ Moveon.org, unions, Occupy Wall Street, Democrats, Michael Moore, Liberals, Progressives, Socialist, etc…
So I see it is you who supports billionaires like Soros and multi-millionaires like Moore?
im glad the unconstitutional super committee failed need to cut spending period no more taxes cut cut cut and vote out the short lil bull dog she has been in office for far to long and is a huge part of the problem.
JOHNNIE: I see you want billionaires to get YOUR tax breaks. Good thinking!
at least they will take the money and reinvest in businesses, versus some lazy a$$ who will take the handouts and go buy booze drugs big screen tv
Funny thing they don’t seem to be doing that at this time.
You know her? I think her dad votes conservative, after all he runs a small business.
Dear Constituents:
If you don’t have a job, please know that I expect you to die quietly. If you do have a job, please know that I expect you to work longer into your aged years and probably take a pay cut.
The reason is that we have to kill SSI and Medicare as we know it in order to give even bigger tax breaks to the millionaire cronies who helped me land this great job by fooling you into voting for me. When I talk about protecting tax cuts, I mean in a way that only benefits the rich. For you, I’ve got a million ways to screw you without touching your taxes. I’m disappointed that the Super Committee didn’t see how easy of a job this was to protect tax cuts for the wealthy by giving worthless people like you the shaft that you deserve.
My next goal is to repeal the one man, one vote principle and institute a form of Oligarchical Fascism so that I no longer ever need to remove my tongue from Massey and the Koch Brothers asses to pretend to pander to your needs at all. You haven’t lived until you’ve given a billionaire a rim job.
Your arrogant representative (well, not YOUR representative),
— Andy Harris
what part of Social Security is increasing the deficit? Last time I counted, Social Security has a $2.4 trillion surplus and is still financing the federal deficit. I don’t know the solution to an imbalance created by too many tax breaks, deductions and loopholes that allow some or many to either pay no income taxes or others pay no business taxes while everyone thinks that someone else needs to bear the brunt of the cuts to balance the budget. While we do this madd exercise which doesn’t quite fix anything, the market will eventually catch up with the fact that we are no longer a AAA rated country and only the sheer size of our national economy is still giving us preferential rates in the bond market. Figure this one out for me..Spain has a lower debt level meausred to GDP than France, Germany, England, Japan and the USA and the market is worried about Spain paying their $629 billion deficit because Spain’s economy was heavily dependent on construction and that collapsed with the financial markets. We seem to think that the marketplace will somehow spare us from dastric cuts and increased taxation once our 2.9% treasury bonds jack up to 7% and makes the USA’s $15 trillion deficit cost more than the dept of defense budget just to pay the interest every year? We are indeed living in interesting times….I think both parties are to blame and a pathetic american public whom wants someone else to bear the brunt of the cost to balance the budget.
Well, folks, let me see if I can summarize. The super committee couldn’t reach an agreement because one side was unwilling to raise taxes and the other was unwilling to make significant spending reductions. No surprise there. The surprise is that anyone thought that they would reach an agreement.
Andy Harris will not vote for a tax increase. Okay, I get that. That is what he promised when he ran and he is keeping his promise. Holy cow! An elected representative that keeps his promise? The only people who don’t like that are the people who didn’t want him elected to begin with. Too bad. The people spoke and if you don’t agree with what they said, then elect someone else next time. If you can.
Meanwhile even poor, tired old liberal CBS is outraged at the Congressional insider trading. Why isn’t anyone else outraged? Insider trading would be trading for which others have gone to jail. But not our “more equal animals” in Congress (please refer to G. Orwell, Animal Farm, chapter 10 for those of you who attended Harford County Public schools). Obama is out of town. Again. Still. I guess it doesn’t really matter since he can’t lead anyway. But I can tell you this, real leaders – never mind their politics – would be in Washington right now. The Department of Energy and Chu are falling on their sword to protect the White House on the Solyndra scandal. Which, in the event you have been vacationing on another planet, was the Obama led executive branch helping one of the Democratic Party’s multi-millionaire supporters by giving subsidized loans to his company. The company fails, the taxpayers pick up the tab and he walks with his millions intact.
Would helping a millionaire friend of the Democratic Party be an exception to progressive/liberal policy and not the norm? Well, let’s take a look at Obama’s hand picked Treasury Secretary Timmy ‘The Hair’ Geithner. Wall Street millionaires have not had a better friend in the administration in many years. Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus has called for his firing.
We can focus on the TEA Party if you want, but I don’t think a lot of you understand the sentiment in this country. Almost every elected politician is held in derision. People are out of work and our leaders are doing everything except creating jobs. People have lost their homes and the foreclosure rate remains very, very high. Some thru stupidity I grant you, others thru unethical and illegal banking and lending practices. Our government is attempting to justify trillion dollar deficits when even an uneducated fool has enough common sense and knows enough mathematics to know there is no justification. Europe is giving us a daily example of where our policies lead and we are arrogant enough to think it can’t happen here.
The people are angry. I don’t know where we will be after the November 2012 elections. I won’t even try to predict. But for the sake of our children and grandchildren someone better get a grip. I have a backup plan for myself and my family. We are learning to speak Chinese in the event we need to be friendly with the new owners.
Your ignorance is staggering.
Watcher,
Okay, several questions for you and I will make it simple for you by making them multiple choice.
I said almost every elected politician is held in derision. Do you agree or disagree? Hint: every poll taken by every polling organization agrees with the statement and shows that the approval ratings of Congress is at a historical low. Both the Republican majority House and the Democratic majority Senate.
The now bankrupt Solyndra is mostly owned/operated by a millionaire supporter of the Democratic Party. Agree or disagree? Hint: Sworn testimony given under oath before Congress agrees with the statement.
The CBS show demonstrated that many elected politicians are benefiting financially by trading on insider information. Agree or disagree. They reported, you decide.
Many people have lost and are still losing their homes because of illegal and/or unethical lending practices. Agree or disagree?
The current Treasury Department has continued and expanded the policies started under the Bush Administration of financially bailing out the so-called “Wall Street firms” and not one Board member or member of executive management of firms receiving bailout money has been indicted. Agree or disagree?
ALEX R: You forgot to mention that Greece’s problems stem from the fact that they are a nation of TAX Scoffers and cheats. If a nation does not have revenue, it will go the same way as Greece. It is not the fault of unions that people are tax cheats (you know like our billionaires who have loopholes to avoid their fair share.)
Proud To Be Liberal,
I don’t think I ever mentioned unions. I just re-read every word and I can’t find any reference to unions. I absolutely agree with you that there are plenty of loopholes for many very wealthy people and for many companies. The loopholes were ‘awarded’ to them by Democrats and Republicans alike. Many of the people and the companies with the loopholes ‘bought’ the favored treatment by spending money influencing our elected representatives. Some call it lobbying. I call most of it bribery.
Watcher,
But surely you have a more cogent thought in your head than ‘your ignorance is staggering’. Strain hard if you will and see if maybe a fact pops out. I understand that you very much dislike Andy Harris. Well, roll up your sleeves and get to work and see if you can get his constituents to elect someone else. Otherwise I guess you will just have to deal with it. Poor you.
How about “your ignorance is astonishing and knows no boundaries.” No? “I am shaken to my very core that someone like you can function” Still no good? Hmmmm…..don’t want to strain like Alex trying to regurgitate some he heard on right wing talk radio…. Um, you’re a douche? No. That’s no good either. I’ll stand by my original statement.
And for the record, I have nothing against Rep. Harris. Don’t know him and never met him. He’s not even my Member of Congress. But I think his completely irresponsible statements leave something to be desired. Really, what has he accomplished? Please cite specific legislation complete with Bill numbers. Hint: they start with H.R.
The US has a great deal of tax cheating through under reporting and under-the-table employment. Liberals are more likely to cheat on their taxes than conservatives.
Many working people and people on welfare and unemployment have side businesses such as EBay, flea markets, Craigslist, off-duty police working security at a bar or retailer for cash, housecleaning, dog walking or work for cash for business owners who don’t report all their revenue thereby keeping sales tax, federal/state income tax and employer-side FICA/Medicare/FUTA. Talk to any Greek diner or pizza shop owner and ask them about both their two sets of books.
Papandreou: Tax cheats cost legitimate taxpayers from $290 billion in 2001 to $500 billion in 2010. That costs each tax payer approximately $2,200 annually. “The biggest losers are wage earners and salaried workers, who pay an estimated 99 percent of their fair tax burden because taxes are withheld from their pay and reported by employers. But individuals with business income — mainly self-employed, sole proprietors paid in cash — misreport roughly 54 percent of their income by underreporting it or claiming deductions, credits and exemptions to which they aren’t entitled.”
President Obama wanted to increase the IRS budget in fiscal 2012 to collect some of these taxes but House Republicans voted to cut the IRS budget by $600 million in fiscal 2012. You can draw your own conclusions as to which party favors honest government for the working man.
@Watcher try using Google and look it up yourself.
Proud,
President Obama wanted to increase every budget in 2012. That’s the problem with President Obama. And that was the problem with Bush. Oh, and in the likely event you disagree, please name one cabinet level department for which Obama proposed less absolute budget dollars in 2012 than was proposed in the prior year. Meanwhile, the deficits continue to increase.
News flash!! My family can’t spend more than it takes in for very long. Nor can your family. Nor can this country.
The difference, I suspect, between you and me is that you are in favor of increasing what the country has available to spend. I, on the other hand, have asked and begged and pleaded with our elected politicians – of both parties – to show some restraint. They, for the most part, have said they were in favor of it. But then they flipped me the bird.
So, not one more penny in taxes. These guys are addicts and the only way to stop them is to cut off their drug of choice.
ALEX R: We Democrats agree that the HUGE deficits created by Bush and the GOP need to be addressed. We need to balance our budget. Our only difference is that we see that the unfair tax benefits afforded the most wealthy (the wealthiest 400 families have more wealth that the poorest 150,000,000 families) cannot be sustained whilst your side wants to balance the budget on the backs of working Americans.
Yes, we cannot spend more than we take in for long so that is why we believe the country must raise REVENUE as well as cut spending. The problem is that the Tea Party/GOP is dead set against relief for the middle class. I am amazed that people like you, who clearly are not a billionaire, would be so adamant to cut your own throat for the benefit of a group who would not give you the time of day. A case in point is that the Democrats offered $2.3 trillion in cuts to the GOP’s 1.2 trillion, yet they rejected that plan as it called for revenue and the GOP had to protect billionaires.
So you see your claim that I want to…“increasing what the country has available to spend. I, on the other hand, have asked and begged and pleaded with our elected politicians – of both parties – to show some restraint…” is not quite accurate and disingenuous. My side has offered higher reductions that your side has refused. I feel that the Tea Party/GOP policies are unconscionable and anyone that supports them is either misinformed, a tool or both.
1. 57% of those who describe themselves as “very liberal” responded yes to the question “Is it okay to cheat on your taxes?” compared to only 20% of those describing themselves as “very conservative.”
2) “Is it morally wrong to cheat Uncle Sam?” 86% of conservatives said yes; 68% of liberals said yes.
3) “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?” 49% of liberals would go along with the scheme, compared to 21% of conservatives.
4) Similarly, more liberals than conservatives said that it’s okay to buy goods that are stolen, to drink a can of soda in the store without buying it, and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.
5) Liberals were much more likely to say it’s okay to receive welfare benefits you didn’t deserve.
6) Liberals were two and a half times more likely to say it’s okay to illegally download or trade music.
Pew Research
please provide a link to the poll results. pardon me if I don’t take your word for it.
I did not know all the CEOs of large banks, coal mines and mortgage companies were liberals.
This information comes from Peter Schweizer who is the author of a book titled “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less … And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals”. Need I say more?
I think Peter Schweizer may have quoted the information but was not the origin of the study.
BULLSHIT!
ME: Your elocution and logical argument must reflect on your position’s validity. I am so impressed by your maturity and education. Your mother must be so proud.
“Liberals are more likely to cheat on their taxes than conservatives.”
Please show me some shred of evidence to support this theory.
“Many people on welfare…have side businesses…off-duty police working security”
Are you saying that our police are on welfare?
You are the most dangerous king of right winger. You paint with incredibly broad strokes and assume you’re intelligent when clearly you are an ignorant clown.
I feel sorry for your family.
LIberals hardly know how to make a living, but for a few. The rest suck at the tit of the Federal, state, and local governments plus fill all the “drone” jobs in the United States. It’s how it is, how it was, and how it will always be. They LOVE spending other peoples money but donate VERY LITTLE themselves. Yes, it is statistically proven. However, if they maintain their current “progressive” ideals shouldn’t they eliminate themselves in a few generations?
So what company are you the CEO of? I sure you must be wildly successful.
MIKE: I don’t think giving to PACs or other anonymous campaign contributions should count as a “contribution.” Moreover, whenever anyone uses “it is statistically proven” as proof to their argument, I am not convinced. Sorry.
Actually Mike you will need us and our ilk to change your colostomy bag when the time comes.
Would someone please tell me where I can find a list of the “job creators” and the jobs that they have created.
DEEG: It is easy: they are on wall street. Unfortunately all the jobs they created are in China or India.
President Obama keeps the Job Creator List in the Social Security Lock box that’s located right next to the Golden Treasury Geese Pen and to the left of the Money Tree Farm.
All good little liberals know these things.
A lesson in economics, world economy and simple math..
We still lead the world in technology, information and machine manufacturing. True, many jobs left because those products can be done more efficiently some place else. We remain the world’s first marketplace and an engine of innovation, research and developement, medical, computer, engineering advanced economic development. We export “things” because our standard of living is higher. Poorer countries can import because their citizens don’t make enough money spend past the daily necesities. Even our “poor” have tv’s, homes, bathrooms, cell phones, cars, computers and by all means are better off than the middle class in China or India. If you guys think that other countries have it better, I think you should purchase your one way ticket out of town. Making it harder on business and industry will only reduce growth and innovation. We need a balanced approach to reduce our defici and just live within our means. Taxing the “rich” more won’t cure this $15 trillion deficit and not cutting anything won’t fix.
FRANKLT SPEAKING: How about the tax loopholes that costs the federal government roughly $2 billion in lost revenue, according to the Congressional Research Service? Should we defer that as well?
@Proud-the loopholes are written into the law either intentionally or unintentionally, but are by all accounts a legal manuver within the tax code. I’d rather you focus on tax cheats, be them rich or poor. One of the biggest items ripe for abuse is the Earned Income tax credit which is not really “earned” but a big giveaway to low income interest groups just as is the yearly patch to avoid the alternative minimum tax. I would advocate flatter tax system in which most people will have to contribute to the nation’s coffers according to what people earn and taking into account that if you get public benefits already, you shouldn’t also get a EITC credit also, since the money refunded wasn’t earned at all. Berore you start calling me names, I tend to side I consider myself mostly a common sense independent, so don’t pull the customary and accusatory tea party mantra on me
“your comment is awaiting moderation” How nice Dagger?
FRANKLY SPEAKING: Re-read what I posted earlier “Tax cheats cost legitimate taxpayers from $290 billion in 2001 to $500 billion in 2010. That costs each tax payer approximately $2,200 annually. “The biggest losers are wage earners and salaried workers, who pay an estimated 99 percent of their fair tax burden because taxes are withheld from their pay and reported by employers. But individuals with business income — mainly self-employed, sole proprietors paid in cash — misreport roughly 54 percent of their income by underreporting it or claiming deductions, credits and exemptions to which they aren’t entitled. President Obama wanted to increase the IRS budget in fiscal 2012 to collect some of these taxes but House Republicans voted to cut the IRS budget by $600 million in fiscal 2012.” I agree we should attempt to pry taxes from tax cheats.
So you would tax low income earners: “Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:
•$43,352 ($48,362 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
•$40,363 ($45,373 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
•$35,535 ($40,545 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
•$13,460 ($18,470 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children “
Ever heard of the trying to squeeze blood from a turnip? I’d rather you would focus of the ultra-rich that pay less tax than the secretaries that work for them.
What name did I call you? However, what you consider as “common sense” I consider right wing.
Yes, let’s get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit, electric car rebates and solar energy credits.
PAUL: Let’s tax the rich at the same rate you pay.
Well that would mean their marginal tax rate would go down.
Proud,
First of all, I’m not on the “side” you might think I am on and seem to assume I am on when you say “your side”. You have no clue as to what “side” I am on. So let me enlightenen you. I am not on the Republican side, nor am I on the Tea Party side, nor am I a Democrat eb=ven though in the past I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I am on my own side and anyone who wants to join me is welcome.
Here are some of the tenets of “my side”. Not another dime in increased taxes. If politicinas can’t spend the enormous amount of money that the get effectively and balance the budget while doing it then out they go. Whether that is a Republican, or a Democrat or an Independent. If they promise me one thing while running then do something else then out they go. I’m okay with doing away with a lot of tax breaks for wealthy individuals, wealthy companies and other organizations that got those breaks thru lobbying. I consider a lot of lobbying (as I have stated before on this site) as bribery. Not all, but a lot.
But – and hear me clearly now – I will not pay one more dime in increased taxes because our elected representatives of both/all persuasions can’t balance the budget and spend what they have in hand. If that brings this country to its knees then that is on their heads not mine.
ALEX R: And one more thing, you stated that “…I will not pay one more dime in increased taxes.”
Obama has LOWERED taxes “…the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reported on Wednesday that “Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels.” How low? The average family of four right now is paying 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes — the second lowest percentage in 50 years.” “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.”
So unless you are a millionaire, your taxes will not be increased. Moreover, Alex, we cannot climb out of this hole without more revenue. You cannot cut your way out of this mess Bush put us in. So get off your high horse and see the roses down here with us regular folks.
ALEX R: The NY Times ran an article (Adam Davidson, The New York Times Magazine, November 27, 2011, pp16-20.) that explored the inequity in today’s workplace. “The top 1 percent of families now makes 26 times the average of the other 99 (the average was 11 to 1 in 1979). The top 0.1 percent makes 130 times the bottom 99.9 (up from 38-to-1 ratio 40 years ago).”
The Huffington Post ran a piece from Bloomberg this morning on how “The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue. Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.”
I cannot understand how any middle class person could support a system that subordinates their own children and grandchildren and which only benefits the very rich and workers overseas. What Democrats seek is to allow the government to be able to protect the average guy,” make life more equal, more stable and, for some, less rewarding.” Our only protection from rapacious, greedy corporations is our elected representatives who must be made to support us over lobbyists.
Proud,
Well I guess we will only ever agree on two things. The value of adoption and our intense dislike of lobbying. Just remember, at least for me, that is all lobbying where money or favors go to eelected representatives at all levels of government in exchange for favors. So that includes organizations such as FNMA and NPR.
That include NRA and FAIR and the Heritage fondation?
CDEV,
Yep. Every darn one of them. Without exception.
BTW, I see Barney Frank has announced his retirement. Let’s see where he ends up. And whether his mother will retain her board seat at the FNMA subsidiary. Oh, I know, there are a bunch of “Barney Franks” out there and they are not all Democrats.
As long as you can admit it then you are an honest broker in my book. I dislike when people only seem to accept the faults of one side of the spectrum but can’t cough up the other.
ALEX R: A front-page article in Sunday’s Times (A Family’s Billions, Artfully Sheltered, By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI, November 27, 2011) describes how the ultra rich dodge their fair share of taxes. I cannot understand how anyone who works, supports his family and pays his fair share of taxes is not outraged by this article. This is a man, Ronald Lauder, who did not earn his money, and is “…an heir to the Estée Lauder fortune whose net worth is estimated at more than $3.1 billion.”
He uses the tax code to skirt taxes. One of his ploys is by “…donating his art to his private foundation, Mr. Lauder has qualified for deductions worth tens of millions of dollars in federal income taxes over the years…. From offshore havens to a tax-sheltering stock deal so audacious that Congress later enacted a law forbidding the tactic, Mr. Lauder has for decades aggressively taken advantage of tax breaks that are useful only for the most affluent.” Democrats have said “that the current system adds to the budget deficit, contributes to the widening income gap between the richest and the rest of society, and shifts the tax burden onto small businesses and the middle class.”
“The tax burden on the nation’s superelite has steadily declined in recent decades, according to a sliver of data released annually by the I.R.S. The effective federal income tax rate for the 400 wealthiest taxpayers, representing the top 0.000258 percent, fell from about 30 percent in 1995 to 18 percent in 2008, the most recent data available. “There’s real truth to the idea that the tax code for the 1 percent is different from the tax code for the 99 percent,” said Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of Colorado. “
“This welfare for the well-off — costing billions of dollars a year — is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and i.o.u.’s to be paid off by future generations,” said Senator Coburn, a Republican, who has called for limits on tax breaks for high earners.”
Now can you justify this type of abuse albeit legal?
Like it or not Ron Lauder paid his federal taxes according to the IRS code, while almost have of Americans paid no federal income taxes at all.
You could take all of Lauder’s money and that of the 400 richest taxpayers and it still will not be enough to fix the nation’s debt and deficit.
PAUL: You see no difference between a billionaire not paying taxes and someone who makes $11,000 not paying taxes? You really are a tool for the wealthy.
I think the vast majority of billionaires pay their taxes and they make up for those who pay no federal income taxes.
PAUL: Right, just as Ronald Lauder pays his FAIR share! My point is that they should pay at least the same rate that you do. But I guess you feel they deserve not to pay comparable rates.
No one compensates for the people that do not pay taxes. Neither the rich who pay in, or the poor who pay in, neither group is accounted for a tax system that expects everyone to pay their fair share. Any other suggestion is a rationalization. And anyone that would rationalize this is enabling poor behavior from their fellow citizens. And if you are silent about this, or do not mind the rationalization being made then you are simply endorsing someone else’ bad behavior and lack of civic duty. Welcome to America, where what is good for me is good for the whole country.
Billionaires are at higher tax rate than I am and they pay more real dollars too.
You do realize in 2009 the top 1% paid 36.7% of all federal income taxes?
PAUL: Do you realize that “the wealth of the 400 richest Americans increased by $30 billion, bringing their total combined wealth to $1.57 trillion, which is more than the combined net worth of 50% of the US population. Just to make this point clear, 400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.” They have 42% of the wealth and should pay 42% of the taxes. So what is your point?
@Proud To Be Liberal writes “They have 42% of the wealth and should pay 42% of the taxes.”
We have federal income taxes in in the US not federal net worth taxes.
I know you are such an ardent liberal/progressive that you want to simply reduce rich people’s wealth by any means possible including double and triple taxation and let the government redistribute that wealth.
For people like you it will never be enough until we have a redistributed equal and unearned outcomes for everyone in this country.
My guess is you would be happy if the US adopted a socially progressive liberal European Neo-socialist system. It hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried, but don’t let that fact stop you.
PORTER: You are using an illogical argument. By taking my statement that all people should pay their fair share of taxes and not use loopholes to avoid them and thus cause the Middleclass to bear the brunt and morphing it into something I do not advocate you are using a BIFURCATION or a FALSE DICHOTOMY argument.
It is a poor way to enhance your argument. There is no way one can justify going back 100 years to robber barons such as Astor, Carngie, Cooke, Fisk, Mellon, Morgan and crew. We need the government, elected by us, and accountable to us (not lobbyists) to guard our interests against the very wealthy. Why would anyone feel powerful rich men should be able to do anything for a profit.
However, I will state that we also must guard against a dictatorship government that has no restraints such as China. There must be a balance and political parties must work for the benefit of the people, which does not exist today. But don’t let that stop you from working for the very wealthy at your own expense.
BTW are you David Porter?
And like it or not, Mr. Lauder took advantage of a system, created for the most part by a Democrat majority in the house, since as you say he has taken advantage of these breaks for decades. Yes both dems and repubs are responsible for our tax code, so lets throw them all out, regardless of who is shouting about it in congress!!!
Retiredawhile: I do not think you can show it was a “Democrat majority in the house.” But no matter, it must be changed. The first step is election reform and the second are those lobbists Alex and I hate.
The Democrats controlled the House from 1954 until 1995. During those forty years is when many of the tax loopholes that exist were written into law. But as you say; no matter, lets get rid of them all!!!
During those 40 years 26 of them a republican was in the white house and could have vetoed them. I would also add that many republicans voted for these loop holes and when they had the house for 11 years they created loop holes too which dems also proudly supported. This is not one team against another both have screwed this up. When Donald Trump can pay no Federal Income Tax for 3 years straight while I am single at the time and paid about 30% then there is a problem!
There you go again conflating ordinary income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and C-Corp rates and coming up with a simple conclusion to a complex question based on 72,536 page US Tax Code.
We need this: “Democrats are offering a bill that would cut taxes for most families next year by about $1,500, paying for the cut by taxing income above $1 million.
The idea is to extend and expand a tax cut passed for this year that has let workers off the hook for 2 percent of their Social Security payroll taxes. The new version offered Monday by Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would boost that figure to 3.1 percent, or half the 6.2 percent payroll tax, for 2012.”
Once again, Democrats looking out for the Middle Class. Want to bet what the Tea Party/GOP will do.
Today, Mitch McConnell announced that Republicans in the Senate will likely support the payroll tax reduction for another year. This announcement has caused the liberal talking heads to go crazy on the various MSNBC programs. Rachel Madow is screaming that they are flip floppers who previously voted against this. She didn’t bother to mention that the vote was against the total jobs bill, of which the payroll tax reduction was a small part.
PROUD,
And give me please the name of just one of those bankers that went to jail or was even indicted. Not one single one. Maybe some fines that were levied against their company and paid with company funds but not one of them personally was penalized. And there were enough of them to have filled an entire prison. However, it would have had to have been a prison somewhere other than California because they can’t even keep Lindsey Lohan behind bars for more than a day even though she repeatedly flips the bird to the judicial system there. That was just a humorous aside. At least I thought it was humorous.
And what have we done to require the Fed to reveal the information? Nada.
Yes, our elected representatives must be required to put our interests ahead of the bribery they receive from lobbyists. All elected representatives – Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
Nay, nary a one.
I came across a poem from 1949. It’s attributed to Clarence J. Brown (R-Ohio). It seems to still be applicable today:
ODE TO THE WELFARE STATE
Father, must I go to work?
No, my lucky son.
We’re living now on Easy Street
On dough from Washington.
We’ve left it up to Uncle Sam,
So don’t get exercised.
Nobody has to give a damn-
We’ve all been stabilized.
But if Sam treats us all so well
And feeds us milk and honey,
Please, Daddy, tell me what the hell
He’s going to use for money.
Don’t worry bub, there’s not a hitch
In this here noble plan-
He simply soaks the filthy rich
And helps the common man.
But, father, won’t there come a time
When they run out of cash?
And we have left them not a dime
When things will go to smash?
My faith in you is shrinking, son,
You nosy little brat;
You do too damn much thinking, son,
To be a Democrat.
Dave: Brown did at least one decent thing in his life. “At the end of his life, however, Brown broke with the ardent segregationist Smith, checking himself out of the hospital to help shepherd the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Smith’s Rules Committee, and earning the lasting gratitude of the civil rights movement.”
What a shame the Tea Party/GOP cannot cooperate with Democrats for the amelioration of the country. They are the party of NO who will do anything to win and provide for their masters.