Posted on 12/04/2010 9:24:38 AM PST by PapaBear3625
Senate Republicans on Saturday voted against extending the Bush tax cuts to only the middle class in a pair of votes Democrats are seizing to paint the GOP as guardians of the rich.
The Senate voted 53-36 to extend all expiring tax cuts on individuals with incomes of less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000 -- seven shy of the required 60 to advance.
The other proposal, which drew opposition from White House officials, would have renewed them for all tax filers with incomes of $1 million or less. That also failed in a 53-36 vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"GOP votes against tax increases on small employers while unemployment is already high"
"The failed 0bamanomics of rewarding failure and punishing success has to stop employers will hire again."
Agreed. Let the PEOPLE see exactly how much this will rob from them. They’ll pass it quickly then...
That leads me to believe they are Fabian Socialists, if not pan Leninists. Its all part of a plan. No accident at all here folks.
The communists in the Administration are trying to encourage
“the class struggle” here as in Europe and elsewhere: howeever, in our country, we all can attain higher income levels instead of being “poor” for life.
[I am an employer. I’ve cut back dramatically in the non essential work we give to contractors because our revenue is in decline. They in turn have laid off crews. If my taxes go up I will be forced to cut back even more.]
Exactly why the Bush tax cuts must not be compromised and extended for all, especially the so called rich who did pay so many taxes but will be forced to lay off so many working class people and create the cesspool of socialism that is killing European socialist countries and communist nations. They always go bankrupt because they steal from the rich and the poor.
And democrats are the worst of all.
Yeah....Swedish taxes on Ethiopian wages.
Feingold is still trying to be a “maverick” by voting “against” the dems when it doesn’t count. Even though we voted the bum out, like Arnold he “will be back”. I heard he may be appointed as ambassador to Egypt.
Shame on Fox for putting ‘Rat propaganda in their headline.
There are plenty of metropolitan areas where couples making $250K to $350K are solidly middle class and hardly rich (esp. if they have two or more children), and almost anywhere in the country small-businesses filing under Subchapter S can easily have earnings of over $250K and proprietors who are very definitely middle class and not rich.
It’s 42 Republicans in the Senate (counting RINOs, of course) since Kirk was sworn in. I think Lieberman voted with us on this, so it was only 10 ‘Rats crossing the aisle.
I don’t side with the party of the Jackassses or their media lackeys - ever. Just figured there were the usual RINO suspects like Snowe, Collins, Goober Grahamnesty, etc. who were awaiting a kickback to sell their vote. Tax increases still go into effect as of January 1st even if nothing is done. It was dumb to put a date of expiration on the tax issue to begin with (DUmocrats spending never has an expiration).
There was no choice. The Bush tax cuts were passed as part of the budget -- which requires a simple majority. They couldn't muster 60 votes in the Senate, chiefly because of McCain's resistance.
Since they weren't passed as part of a stand-alone tax bill, they automatically expired in ten years.
I think you may be confused. The 53 who voted for these 2 provisions were in favor of letting the old tax rate be restored for higher income people. They were democrats, but for procedural reasons 60 votes were needed. Since there are only 100 senators, they had the majority. Since the vote was 53 vs 36 which adds up to 89, what happened to the other 11 people? Were they sick, out of town, afraid to be counted, undecided, or what. They were divided between republicans and democrats.
Incidently, if I remember correctly the top restoration would be from 35% to 39.5%, hardly a fortune for someone earning over a million. I can remember when the top rate was 70%. Also there is a lot of talk about small business owners being hurt. I think that the legal definition of small business is as many as 500 employees. I suspect that when most of us think small business, we are thinking no more than 10 people. Most really small business owners have so many legal deductions that their Adjusted Gross Income on the 1040 is likely to be lower than $250,000 and certainly less than a $million, so they would not be affected. I am curious, how many employees do you imagine when you hear the word “small business?”
“That’s what unemployment benefits are. Gov’t spending.”
And lack of unemployment benefits are eviction court costs, welfare programs, child abuse prevention staff, food stamps, homeless shelters, Supplemental Social Security, medicaid, emergency room admissions for worse health, crime and punishment costs for the desperate and hungry, etc. Don’t worry, there will be Gov’t spending either way.
Also, I looked up the actual facts for the legal definition of “small business”, and part of it is 500 employees, but it is more complicated than that. See link:
http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/officials/size/summaryofssi/index.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.