Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Pelosi Congress Sending You a $2,641 Bill
NewsMax.com Wires
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Pelosi, Dems Sending You a $2,641 Bill
The average American family will have to pay an extra $2,641 a year if President Bush's 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire -- but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have given no indication they plan to extend the cuts.
"The mugging will lift $3.3 trillion from purses and wallets because the 2003 cuts will begin expiring soon," Ernest Istook – a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation – writes in the Washington Post.
"The budget resolution moving through Congress is the blueprint for what's coming. Higher spending – by hundreds of billions – is the plan. Renewing tax cuts isn't."
Istook calls the expiration of the tax cuts in 2010 a "back-door tax increase" because the Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't have to act to usher in the increase – it simply needs to take no action to extend the cuts or make them permanent, "something the new majority says it won't do."
Last September, Democrat Charles Rangel of New York – who is now chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee – said in an interview that he "cannot think of one" of Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal.
In a January interview with John Browne, contributing editor of NewsMax's Financial Intelligence Report, Rangel was again asked about the tax cuts. He indicated he was open-minded about the issue, but was noncommittal, saying: "That's 2010. What happens in 2010, happens in 2010, depending on what the economy looks like … what the budget looks like…
"I for one just don't see how you can give tax cuts to the rich and just come to the Congress and ask them to put young people in harm's way and give tax cuts to the rich."
The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, according to a Heritage Foundation report in January, and economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 cuts.
But if the tax cuts are allowed to expire, the federal government will grab more than 1.5 percent of GDP a year in extra tax revenue by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Without the cuts, "personal and business income tax rates will climb," Istook writes.
"Capital gains taxes will go up. The death tax will have new life. The marriage penalty will once more punish husbands and wives. Child tax credits won't continue. And the alternative minimum tax will hit more and more middle-income workers.
"The sneaky thing is that instead of voting to raise taxes and going on the record … Congress won't have to do a thing.
"Taxpayers should keep their eyes focused on their own pockets. They're about to get picked."
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
And, since it was Dems that were among the leading proponents of altering the AMT, I am sure that will not revert. And the marriage reform will continue.
I think this strikes at the heart of why I'm not a Democrat. It's not the moral issues because I'm very liberal when it comes to some and conservative when it comes to others. It's the money issues.
Democrats just strike me as people who think they know how to spend your money better than you do. And that I can't handle.
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
Republicans could have cut spending too, that's possible and they claimed forever that's all we needed along with that tax cut.
They did nothing to cut spending they spent like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The word, discredited comes to mind.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Republicans could have cut spending too, that's possible and they claimed forever that's all we needed along with that tax cut.
They did nothing to cut spending they spent like drunken sailors on shore leave.
The word, discredited comes to mind.
At least they got it half right. The answer is not to continue to spend like drunken sailors and raise taxes to support it. The answer is to sober up, sailors, and get your ish together. Slash spending and stop porking up every bill so you can get your votes on "major" issues.
Playing politics with my tax dollars doesn't impress me.
And as we are moving forward in a partnership, of which my wife and I will both make equal amounts, the marriage penalty will also potentially affect me.
The Dems say only the rich will be affected, but they give no facts or figures to back that up. This is what Newt Gingrich says will happen:
“Liberals are at it again. Just three months into their majority, Democrats are once again proposing the biggest tax increase in history... If it is passed, [the Democrats’ 2008 proposed] budget will impose the largest tax increase in history on American taxpayers—totaling nearly $400 billion over five years. Families with children, low-income families, and small businesses all would be hit with hundreds if not thousands of dollars in increased taxes. Just what taxes will be raised? Here are some of the specifics of the liberal proposal: The 10% Tax Bracket Will Become 15%: More than five million families and individuals who previously owed no taxes will become subject to taxation. Marriage Penalty Relief Will Be Eliminated: 23 million Americans will owe an average of $466 in additional taxes in 2011. The Child Tax Credit Will Be Cut in Half: 31 million Americans will pay an average of $859 more in taxes in 2011... You’re a family of four earning $60,000 a year: Your income-tax bill will rise 61% in 2011, from $3,030 to $4,893... You’re an elderly couple earning $40,000 a year: Your taxes will go up by 156% in 2011, from $583 to $1,489... You’re a woman: You could be one of the 83 million American women who could see their taxes rise by an average of $2,068... You’re married: You could be one of the 48 million married couples who will pay an average of $2,899 more under the liberal tax increase... You have kids: 42 million families with children will pay an average of $2,181 more in taxes.” —Newt Gingrich
BY FRED THOMPSON
Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
It's that time again, and I was thinking of the old joke about paying your taxes with a smile. The punch line is that the IRS doesn't accept smiles. They want your money.
So it's not that funny, but there is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.
In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.
Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010.
Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this success story is where the increased revenues are coming from. Critics claimed that across-the-board tax cuts were some sort of gift to the rich but, on the contrary, the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the national bill than ever before.
The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.
The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.
President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned.
Now, as before, politicians are itching to fund their pet projects with the short-term revenue increases that come from tax hikes, ignoring the long-term pain they always cause. Unfortunately, the tax cuts that have produced our record-breaking government revenues and personal incomes will expire soon. Because Congress has failed to make them permanent, we are facing the worst tax hike in our history. Already, worried investors are trying to figure out what the financial landscape will look like in 2011 and beyond.
This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations. And beyond the issue of our annual federal budget is the nearly $9 trillion national debt that we have not even begun to pay off.
To face these challenges, and any others that we might encounter in a hazardous world, we need to maintain economic growth and healthy tax revenues. That is why we need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success. Those who say they want a "more progressive" tax system should be asked one question: Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue--or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?
If these figures are all correct (deficit and tax revenue) then why in the world would the Dems want to roll back the tax cuts? Because saying "tax cuts for the rich" earns political capital?
If these figures are all correct (deficit and tax revenue) then why in the world would the Dems want to roll back the tax cuts? Because saying "tax cuts for the rich" earns political capital?
Bingo!!!!
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
And as we are moving forward in a partnership, of which my wife and I will both make equal amounts, the marriage penalty will also potentially affect me.
Exactly.
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
At least "tax and spend" D's pay as they go..... Your R's spend more and rack up an enormous debt. Right now, 20 cents of every tax dollar goes to service the incredibly huge national debt (with another 29 cents going to defense, plus even more in un-earmarked money for Iraq). Yeah.... You R's really know how to manage a buck, don't you....
You dug us a great hole, guys..... your children and grandchildren will appreciate it, I'm sure....
And in fact, you've dug us such a hole, that even with huge budget surpluses, it will be nearly impossible to ever eradicate the debt.....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Linear Mode
