Skip to comments.FOX NEWS: Tax Hikes 'Impossible' Under Debt Deal? Think Again ( Debt deal is indeed a BIG TAX HIKE!)
Posted on 08/01/2011 11:06:13 AM PDT by Kevin in CaliforniaEdited on 08/01/2011 12:52:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
Can you POSSIBLY be so uninformed as to belive this COMMISSION CN PASS TAX LEGISLATION ON IT’S OWN
Dems are just doing what they always do... Tax Republicans and spend on Dem constituents. The reason there is no budget in FY 11 is because it allows them to keep spending at FY 10 levels (think stimulus) and now we find that stimulus spending is going into the baseline for FY 12. We need someone who can out smart these criminals...
Not really...did anyone REALLY think that we were going to get real spending reform with the Dems in control of the Senate and White House?
IMHO this doesn’t help the Dems that much, but nor does it hurt them.
What hurts them is Obama’s 40% approval rating, 1.4% GDP growth (likely to be revised down), and unemployment over 9%.
NO debt deal was going to improve that between now and fall 2012.
Time to slow down, read the bill in its entirety and pause to consider the future of the country. Birthday party has to be on the back burner.
The reason the Speaker is late is he has to explain to some air-heads that that is the case.
Good!!!! Why would the Republicans want their name on this piece of garbage. It does NOTHING to help the economy.
Did you miss the mechanism in the bill that Granny gets it if the commission can’t agree
Granny gets it if a RINO doesn’t cave.
Plus this is all about monkeying around with the baseline.
Agreed - the problem was the Donks didn’t want their Dear Leader to have to face this in his re-election and refused to approve any deal that exposed him to that.
Sad thing is, I don’t think it’ll matter much for Obozo.
Any increase in national debt is by nature a tax increase. All debt must eventually be paid by tax revenues. The amount tax revenues must increase, in present value terms, is equal to the increase in the debt. Debt = taxes. Law of Economics.
Well at least it’s not a blog!
The House will take up the deal after 6:00 PM.
“Well at least its not a blog!”
Yeah, but seems we used to have standards here.
Posting like this is Bull**it!
Let's see... this is crisis number four or five since Obummer was elected. Always last minute crisis, eliminating time to be reasonable. Every Representative and Senator should be required to visit their district before passing any bill. Tired of "back-room" deals made in D.C.
Anyone else hear about the bill including free (tax-paid) birth control for the asking and again cutting Medicare payments to doctors? A partner in my doctor’s practice just announced he will not take any new Medicare patients.
Like or dislike doesn't enter the equation.
It's unsourced hear-say. Would you be in favor of everyone posting threads about something they saw on TV?
Shannon Bream is a nitwit.
Fox is into sensationalism.
That said, what she said - if your report is accurate - is speculative.
As yet - as of your post about it - the supposed tax hike in the agreement is unidentified.
Her statement on why Speaker Boehner is late is guesswork...she had nothing to back it up.
Another post says the vote is postponed because the deal doesn’t have the votes.
That could be why Boehner was late...but no, the nitwit Shannon Bream guessed it was because a big tax hike was hidden in plain sight in the deal and was suddenly discovered.
I’ll wait before reacting.
Almost by definition, $Trillions more in debt *IS* a tax increase. You need to include who is being taxed when defining more debt as a tax. In this case, the tax is on our kids, their kids, and their kid’s kids.
And I’m not kidding.
Not in the bill. It was announced by Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I think it’s a new regulation.
I think I stated that incorrectly, in my rush to answer the doorbell.
I think it’s that the
of the Bush tax cuts represents a loss to the govt — Something like $5 trillion — and for which this ‘loss’ must be then treated with added taxes indeed.
That’s what’s so despicable about these purposely confusing, confounding mathematical theatrics and gymnastics. Then add the lying and spin to that.
TERM LIMITS for ALL OF ‘EM !!!
Apparently this REALLY IS a well disguised tax hike.
No one not familiar with the way Washington “works” would be able to spot it, but the key is that it uses the existing tax laws as the base. The Bush tax hikes expire at the end of 2012, and this makes sure they do, in fact expire.
In other words, since Obama will be the President at the end of 2012, and until January 20th, 2013, he will be the President at the time this would kick into effect even if he is not re-elected. He would certainly veto any attempt to repeal this.
The only way to stop the tax hike would be to retroactively repeal the hike after the new President and Congress was sworn in. If the dems retain 41 seats or more in the Senate, which is likely, they would be able to block any repeal.
It also messes with the AMT, making it much worse. I haven’t had time to get the details on that.
In other words, this thing raises taxes A LOT. It is, indeed, a very clever trap.
The Bush tax cuts expire in 2012. Not extending them is NOT considered a tax increase/new tax.
Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire...and says he will veto any bill that trys to reinstate that....course he needs to get reelected....
I posted what Fox has on THEIR site, Verne.
(I will always remember exactly where I was when Obama made his NCAA picks.)
FoxNews has just learned what Freepers figured out 15 hours ago.
not all FReepers.
some have been busy for the past 2 days, saying what a great victory this bill is, and what a great job Boehner did, and that we should be happy with what we can get now, and wait for 2012 for more.
When the Washington Post writes it’s a great victory for the GOP, and a loss for Reid and Obama...
i’d go back and check the fine print.
Here is an idea for you - start a forum, and appoint yourself “chief posting scrutinizer.”
You can ban everyone that links to a blog or posts anything you think does not belong. It will be loads of fun for you.
Why isn’t on the Fox News homepage?
Medicare payments are not cut as a result of this bill. That only goes into effect if the committee cannot deliver other cuts by the end of the year. Dems are not going to let that happen.
They were talking about this last night....on Fox I believe....
No, but the supercongress can recommend tax hikes and this deal says Congress HAS to vote for them or AUTOMATICALLY get defense cut.
The GOP would be voted to be blackmailed.
The GOP is going lose if it does and doesn’t when that happens.
This bill is a set up.
Plouffe is quoted as a source. You really believe Obama's campaign guy?
What happened to Boehner’s promise that a bill will be online for 72 hours before it is voted on for passage? Our rating is going to be downgraded anyway, so what the heck is the rush to pass this turkey without letting the people read it?
Why is this being treated as a real news story?
I have an idea for you, too.. but I'd best not post it here.
You apparently think scrutiny is a bad thing. Nobody should mention things they see as wrong.
I see things differently.
If the deal is based on a baseline that assumes the expiration of the Bush cuts, then Mr. Boehner’s claimed deficit reduction is hugely exaggerated (and not for the first time) because a lot of the deficit reduction is provided by the expected increase in revenues due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That is my understanding — if anyone has a different understanding, please post it, because right now this deal looks like a dog to me.
Yeh...I wanted to throw something at the tv this morning, when Pelousy was being interviewed on this this morning, saying, “well, she hadn’t read what was in the bill just yet, but yadda yadda yadda....she was sure it was a good thing for the country, economy, et al.”
Damn I hate these people.
I’m with you all the way.
That's how they can get away with saying this does not include a tax hike. But the reality is that taxes would go up a LOT, regardless of what the politicians call it.
If Boehner knew this when he said there were no new taxes then he was telling at best a half truth intended to mislead. I call that a lie.
It's even worse if Boehner simply did not know that is what would happen.
Either way, I have lost all confidence in Boehner.
Hear-say? You don't say.
It's not a supercongress...it's a committee.
And the committee can also recommend tax cuts and Congress has to vote for them or get Medicare reformed.
Why aren't you stating that fact?
No biggie. Everyone is overreacting here, IMHO. Obama has to get reelected before anything else happens. And right now it doesn’t look like Obama will get reelected due to stagnating economy.
Never trust a bill sponsored by a DEM. NEVER.
We borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend.
That can’t last forever, but the answer is not that automatically debt = taxes.
Money can be printed. It’s called “monetizing” the debt. Not a good option, but an option nonetheless.
The economy can unleash growth and tax revenues would roll in without a tax increase. A properly constructed tax cut such as in capital gains, etc, has been a proven automatic revenue increaser. Any increase in revenues does not have to be spent and would therefore be available to balance a budget and pay down debt.
Get a grip.
Thanks for posting this. I also saw what you did.