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...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by barryr

...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by TonyR

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]

Originally Posted by TailgateNutsinmouth

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

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

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by barryr

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

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

[Mr.Meanie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

[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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

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.

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]

Originally Posted by TonyR

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]

Originally Posted by BrewCrew

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]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

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/...-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/doc9..._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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by BrewCrew

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:

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