Dem. Hoyer-tax increases necessary to address nation's debt

[barryr]

And tax increases not just for the wealthy either. But hey, some of us have been saying this would happen despite the denials of the bozos on the left who actually believed otherwise. But the democrats will extend them past election time at least so can look good to their idiot supporters who believe they don't do things just for political gain.

Hoyer: Permanent middle class tax cuts too costly
Jun 22 10:59 AM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation's mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight retain control of Congress.

In the shorter term, Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly.

Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000—at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

"As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GGCVE00&show_article=1

[TonyR]

Sad but true. There is no possible way we'll get out of this hole without both massive spending/benefit cuts and tax increases. It's simple math and logic.

[barryr]

What? But I thought Obama inherited such an economic mess, yet he promised no taxes for people making less than 250,000, or was it 200,000, no wait, 150,000. The chosen one couldn't see that far ahead not to make promises he couldn't make? Oh, my.

[Rigs11]

either pay your taxes or shut your piehole about the deficit.

[Rohirrim]

Sad but true. There is no possible way we'll get out of this hole without both massive spending/benefit cuts and tax increases. It's simple math and logic.

Yep. But in the rightard world, you can fight wars and give tax cuts at the same time. Of course, I have yet to see them take responsibility for anything, or offer a responsible path for anything. Look at their hero, Palin? When the going gets tough, the tough quit and go on a book tour. :rofl:

In my lifetime, the formula has always held: The Right destroys the country, then the Left has to clean up the mess.

[TonyR]

...he promised no taxes for people making less than 250,000, or was it 200,000, no wait, 150,000.

Since I'm sure you make far less than any of these figures I'm not sure what you have to be concerned about...

[TailgateNut]

What? But I thought Obama inherited such an economic mess, yet he promised no taxes for people making less than 250,000, or was it 200,000, no wait, 150,000. The chosen one couldn't see that far ahead not to make promises he couldn't make? Oh, my.


Good grief, you are one WHINEY ASS BITCH!

[El Guapo]

Stop spending first, then talk about taxes... oh, and cut salary for elected officials and enact term limits, then we'll talk.

[barryr]

Since I'm sure you make far less than any of these figures I'm not sure what you have to be concerned about...

You left your parents' basement yet?

[barryr]

Good grief, you are one WHINEY ASS b****!

Oh, looky, the homeless thing who showers once a month is speaking. Yes maam! :yayaya:

[TailgateNut]

Oh, looky, the homeless thing who showers once a month is speaking. Yes maam! :yayaya:

At least you're consistant. You never make sense!

[Mr.Meanie]

Sad but true. There is no possible way we'll get out of this hole without both massive spending/benefit cuts and tax increases. It's simple math and logic.

Yep. Exactly.

I never liked the idea Obama was spreading when he was promising tax cuts for 95% of people during the race. I didn't believe, and still don't believe that is possible.

The only thing that was refreshing about that is he actually said he was raising taxes to help the budget. It was quite a change from the last administration, who actually cut taxes while spending additional hundreds of billions on war.

We are going to need some drastic changes. I think it's going to be very hard climate to raise taxes in, because now all everyone will do is call Obama a liar and a socialist tax-and-spend liberal no matter what he attempts to try to fix the budget. Then if the Repubs win, they will cut taxes even further because they believe that is what stimulates the economy... followed by a Democrat winning who promises not to raise taxes, ad absurdum.

I think its going to take a non-bailed out complete economic collapse for us to clean house and start over... most likely in our children's time.

[cutthemdown]

So if they do raise them it's ok because it's needed. Doesn't matter to you people Obama lied again? It will lose election for him if he does this before election. He probably loses anyways.

[Popcorn Sutton]

So if they do raise them it's ok because it's needed. Doesn't matter to you people Obama lied again? It will lose election for him if he does this before election. He probably loses anyways.

Another politician who has not held up to all his campaign promises. Add him to the heap of President's before him...

See Bush Governor (Presidential candidate) vs. Bush President:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjJAIuQz9D8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjJAIuQz9D8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Popcorn Sutton]

Of course you remember the infamous "No new taxes" line as well Cut.

[Popcorn Sutton]

My point being, it's only an issue for Dems when a Republican is President and vice versa.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It's all a vicious cycle.

[TonyR]

Doesn't matter to you people Obama lied again?

You might want to re-read the article, assuming you read it a first time.

President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000—at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

Where's the lie here? How is this not in line with what he campaigned on?

Obama doesn't have to raise taxes on the middle class, but most likely somebody at some point down the road certainly will.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Yep. But in the rightard world, you can fight wars and give tax cuts at the same time. Of course, I have yet to see them take responsibility for anything, or offer a responsible path for anything. Look at their hero, Palin? When the going gets tough, the tough quit and go on a book tour. :rofl:

In my lifetime, the formula has always held: The Right destroys the country, then the Left has to clean up the mess.

let me ask you a question. what percentage of GDP was the US debt under George Bush? It was 40% after his last term, but had been 36% before he went on a spending spree in 08. FYI, he inherited from Clinton a debt of 35.1% of GDP, meaning a 5% increase in federal debt as pct of GDP under Bush. It's 56.8% after one year of Obama. One can make a couple of conclusions from that data. First, maybe GDP has fallen, making Obama's % higher. Well, we all know what happens to GDP when government stimulus spending increases...it shrinks. So this dude basically increased US debt to reduce GDP--he shot himself in the foot. Second, maybe Obama's just a typical tax and spend honk. Well, based on the last 1.5 years, we know this to be true.

I know that data isn't your thing, but I'm guessing this just may be the first time in your lifetime that you're proud of your country....

The deficit was 459B after Bush got through with his bender--the largest in history. Obama's first year? 1.84Trillion.

[cutthemdown]

You might want to re-read the article, assuming you read it a first time.

President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000—at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

Where's the lie here? How is this not in line with what he campaigned on?

Obama doesn't have to raise taxes on the middle class, but most likely somebody at some point down the road certainly will.

Ok fine it's another dem proposing it but the indies will most certainly take it out in election. You are kidding yourself if you think they won't.

Basically the election has 40% on either side who will vote the party line. You are only fighting over the other 20% or so. If you think things like the general flap, the oil spill handling, then tax cuts expire and they try and say its not like we raised them!!! to not lose votes you are kidding yourself.

[cutthemdown]

Of course you remember the infamous "No new taxes" line as well Cut.

Hell yeah and we remember how it cost him the election too right Brew?

[Popcorn Sutton]

let me ask you a question. what percentage of GDP was the US debt under George Bush? It was 40% after his last term, but had been 36% before he went on a spending spree in 08. FYI, he inherited from Clinton a debt of 35.1% of GDP, meaning a 5% increase in federal debt as pct of GDP under Bush. It's 56.8% after one year of Obama. One can make a couple of conclusions from that data. First, maybe GDP has fallen, making Obama's % higher. Well, we all know what happens to GDP when government stimulus spending increases...it shrinks. So this dude basically increased US debt to reduce GDP--he shot himself in the foot. Second, maybe Obama's just a typical tax and spend honk. Well, based on the last 1.5 years, we know this to be true.

I know that data isn't your thing, but I'm guessing this just may be the first time in your lifetime that you're proud of your country....

The deficit was 459B after Bush got through with his bender--the largest in history. Obama's first year? 1.84Trillion.

Assassin, The CBO reported the deficits would be well over a trillion before Obama took office. I've posted this a number of times.

Read:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/


Here's the CBO report prior to Obama taking office... I.E. There is no way his policies could have affected the numbers in this report.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

Page 11:

The Budget Outlook

The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets
has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO
currently projects that the deficit this year will total
$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however,
does not include the effects of any future legislation.
Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example,
would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage
of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the
previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent
posted in 1983 (see Figure 11).

A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending
(much of it related to the government’s actions to address
the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute
to the robust growth in this year’s deficit. Compared
with receipts last year, collections from corporate
income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and
individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic
conditions, they would both grow by several percentage
points. In addition, the estimated deficit includes
outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of
transactions of the TARP.8

The report was released 2 weeks prior to Obama becoming President.

Care to revise your numbers? Or wait, are numbers and data not YOUR thing?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Hell yeah and we remember how it cost him the election too right Brew?

Like I said, it's all a vicious cycle. The lies and broken promises...It only matters to Republicans when a Democrat is President and it only matters to Democrats when a Republican is President. It's all pretty childish.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok fine it's another dem proposing it but the indies will most certainly take it out in election. You are kidding yourself if you think they won't.

Basically the election has 40% on either side who will vote the party line. You are only fighting over the other 20% or so. If you think things like the general flap, the oil spill handling, then tax cuts expire and they try and say its not like we raised them!!! to not lose votes you are kidding yourself.

I'm an Indy and I can say without a doubt that if the Democrats and Obama raise taxes on the middle class after making it the centerpiece of their campaign....I'd be hard pressed to believe anything he says in his next campaign. I'm pretty much already there but I'm not so naive to think the Republicans are above such practices.

[barryr]

Another politician who has not held up to all his campaign promises. Add him to the heap of President's before him...

See Bush Governor (Presidential candidate) vs. Bush President:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjJAIuQz9D8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjJAIuQz9D8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Why am I not surprised you get your political news from a liberal on a comedy channel no less :wave:

[Rohirrim]

let me ask you a question. what percentage of GDP was the US debt under George Bush? It was 40% after his last term, but had been 36% before he went on a spending spree in 08. FYI, he inherited from Clinton a debt of 35.1% of GDP, meaning a 5% increase in federal debt as pct of GDP under Bush. It's 56.8% after one year of Obama. One can make a couple of conclusions from that data. First, maybe GDP has fallen, making Obama's % higher. Well, we all know what happens to GDP when government stimulus spending increases...it shrinks. So this dude basically increased US debt to reduce GDP--he shot himself in the foot. Second, maybe Obama's just a typical tax and spend honk. Well, based on the last 1.5 years, we know this to be true.

I know that data isn't your thing, but I'm guessing this just may be the first time in your lifetime that you're proud of your country....

The deficit was 459B after Bush got through with his bender--the largest in history. Obama's first year? 1.84Trillion.

What a bunch of gobbledygook.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Why am I not surprised you get your political news from a liberal on a comedy channel no less :wave:

Right... you've got me pegged. You act like a 12 year old.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Assassin, The CBO reported the deficits would be well over a trillion before Obama took office. I've posted this a number of times.

Read:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/


Here's the CBO report prior to Obama taking office... I.E. There is no way his policies could have affected the numbers in this report.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

Page 11:



The report was released 2 weeks prior to Obama becoming President.

Care to revise your numbers? Or wait, are numbers and data not YOUR thing?

I noticed you decided not to reply to this post barry.

[JJJ]

Yep. But in the rightard world, you can fight wars and give tax cuts at the same time. Of course, I have yet to see them take responsibility for anything, or offer a responsible path for anything. Look at their hero, Palin? When the going gets tough, the tough quit and go on a book tour. :rofl:

In my lifetime, the formula has always held: The Right destroys the country, then the Left has to clean up the mess.

Hilarious!

Democrats started Vietnam, Republicans ended it.
Democrats created 20% interest rates & hyper inflation, Republicans ended it.
Democrats created the housing bubble, Republicans will have to fix that.
Democrats created the debt with social programs and Republicans will have to end that enventually also.

The right is the only thing preventing this country from completely going down the ****hole.

[JJJ]

What a bunch of gobbledygook.

Specifically, what is not correct?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Yep. But in the rightard world, you can fight wars and give tax cuts at the same time. Of course, I have yet to see them take responsibility for anything, or offer a responsible path for anything. Look at their hero, Palin? When the going gets tough, the tough quit and go on a book tour. :rofl:

In my lifetime, the formula has always held: The Right destroys the country, then the Left has to clean up the mess.

Hilarious!

Democrats started Vietnam, Republicans ended it.
Democrats created 20% interest rates & hyper inflation, Republicans ended it.
Democrats created the housing bubble, Republicans will have to fix that.
Democrats created the debt with social programs and Republicans will have to end that enventually also.

The right is the only thing preventing this country from completely going down the ****hole.

Bush and the Republicans added to Medicare just a few years ago. Vietnam is going to look small by the time Iraq and Afghanistan are over... who started those wars? Republicans are the party of "deficits don't matter" and this was evident in policies of Reagan and Bush Jr. Got news for you... deficits turn into this little thing called DEBT. How can you say these things with a straight face?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Specifically, what is not correct?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2870290&postcount=22

[cutthemdown]

Like I said, it's all a vicious cycle. The lies and broken promises...It only matters to Republicans when a Democrat is President and it only matters to Democrats when a Republican is President. It's all pretty childish.

spot on

[Smiling Assassin27]

Assassin, The CBO reported the deficits would be well over a trillion before Obama took office. I've posted this a number of times.

Read:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/


Here's the CBO report prior to Obama taking office... I.E. There is no way his policies could have affected the numbers in this report.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

Page 11:



The report was released 2 weeks prior to Obama becoming President.

Care to revise your numbers? Or wait, are numbers and data not YOUR thing?

from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009—the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945.[/QUOTE]

Check this out, Brew: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2894

See, your biased report only provides half the story. CBO did a revised projection of the deficit AFTER Obama's legislation was enacted in order to predict its effect on the 2009 deficit. This includes the Stimulus, the Housing Initiative, the FDIC law and others.

The revision was that OBAMA'S legislation would take the 09 deficit up from the projected 1.19B in January 09 with Bush's policies--see p. 15 of this:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

to 1.82B in June 09. See page 2 under 'CBO Estimate Of The President's Budget here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/06-16-AnalysisPresBudget_forWeb.pdf

when Obama's policies were enacted and factored in.

Between January and June, Obama submitted his budget in February, as Congress decided to wait until the Messiah was in office rather than let GW approve another budget. So in March, CBO's revised estimate of 09 deficit, based on that and the enacted legislation up to that point went from 1.1B to 1.67B. See page 2 of this:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-PresidentBudget.pdf

The only thing that's changed is OBAMA'S budget and legislation, nothing else. So to summarize, the projected deficit for 09 with JUST Bush's programs, including TARP, was 1.1B. Obama takes office in January, submits his budget in February, and in March that deficit estimate by CBO rises to 1.67B. Obama passes the stimulus, the housing initiative, a Pell Grant program, his student loan guarantee plan, and others. In May, he submits his detailed budget and in June, CBO raises that deficit prediction to 1.84B.

I don't have to tell you that Obama's first year deficit was the largest in history, and it was of his own doing. The additional spending made it so. Please don't misunderstand and think I'm OK with Bush's deficit and spending--i'm already on record as being appalled.

If it were Bush's baby, the deficit would've been 1.1T. Obama's policies took it to 1.6 officially. Dems have had Congress for 3 years now and have generated the two highest deficits in history. Those are the facts. Read the publications, as they complete the partial picture you submitted from CBO in your post.

[broncocalijohn]

Cut spending first. It is amazing when you save money at home (congress/white house), how much money is left. You can extend the Bush Tax cuts but leave everything as is aka no new tax cuts. Problem is to get every elected official not to ask for pork. War is costing a **** load of dough too and there is no end in sight. Lastly, start kicking out illegal aliens. They cost more to states than they help.

[mhgaffney]

The only way out is to abolish the federal reserve -- then declare the biblical principle of debt forgiveness -- known as the jubilee year

In the ancient world every 49th year was a jubilee year. Its function was to recycle human society -- by allowing people a fresh start.

The ancients were not dumb. We should learn from them -- our forebears.

[TonyR]

Democrats started Vietnam, Republicans ended it.
Democrats created 20% interest rates & hyper inflation, Republicans ended it.
Democrats created the housing bubble, Republicans will have to fix that.
Democrats created the debt with social programs and Republicans will have to end that enventually also.

The right is the only thing preventing this country from completely going down the ****hole.

LOL!!! I'll give you just two recent examples that clearly go the other direction:

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
-and-
The invasion and occupation of Iraq

And explicitly blaming Dems for most of the things on your list is a little weak, just as you can't solely blame the GOP for the two recent items I listed. But when you get all of your news and information from right wing sources you're going to have a blatant bias.

[cutthemdown]

Didn't dems control Congress before Iraq? Hell they all voted to go to war and for all the sanctions. Dems went for all those sanctions and voted for the war so they blew chance to wash hands of it.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The revision was that OBAMA'S legislation would take the 09 deficit up from the projected 1.19B in January 09 with Bush's policies--see p. 15 of this:

The deficit was 459B after Bush got through with his bender--the largest in history. Obama's first year? 1.84Trillion.

You said the deficit was 459B under Bush but you failed to account for the fact that approximately 1.1-1.2 Trillion of the 09' deficit is directly attributable to Bush policies. It seems now you have revised your statements.

It did go up under Obama. I'm not arguing that point. But for you to come out and say it went from 459B to 1.8T---Bush to Obama is factually incorrect.

Agreed?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/zero-corp-taxes.jpg