Obama DENIED! =D

[PhillyDinar]

Senate rejects Obama plan to end tax cuts for top earners

Reid hopes deal can be finalized by Wednesday

Senator Mitch McConnell said he was relatively confident there would be a deal with the White House on the tax cuts bill. Senator Mitch McConnell said he was relatively confident there would be a deal with the White House on the tax cuts bill. (Harry Hamburg/ Associated Press)

By David M. Herszenhorn

New York Times / December 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Senate rejected President Obama’s proposal to let tax rates rise for the highest-income Americans yesterday, as Republicans held firm in their push to continue all of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts.

* Tweet 12 people Tweeted this

* Submit to Diggdiggsdigg

* Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis

The White House and congressional leaders are now discussing a deal to extend the reduced tax rates at all income levels, at least temporarily, perhaps for two years.

But with Senate Democrats and the White House badly splintered, and some lawmakers increasingly angry at the idea of sustaining President George W. Bush’s economic policies, the prospects of a compromise remained uncertain.

The floor action yesterday highlighted the volatility of the issue. Obama’s plan, approved by the House on Thursday, would have extended the lower rates on income up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals, but Democrats did not have the 60 votes required under Senate rules to muscle it forward.

Nor could they muster the votes needed for an alternative proposal to end the breaks only on income exceeding $1 million.

Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted unanimously against both proposals. Most Democrats said that showed them siding with “millionaires and billionaires’’ over the middle class. Republicans said they were refusing to let taxes rise for anyone, given the continuing weakness in the economy.

If Congress does not act, the tax rates expire for everyone Dec. 31, meaning an increase across the board. The rate in the lowest bracket would rise from 10 percent to 15 percent and in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

Some Democrats suggested they were willing to let that happen and extend the fight into next year. Obama, while pronouncing himself “very disappointed’’ with the outcome, told reporters he would work through the weekend on a compromise.

The administration and congressional leaders have been discussing a plan that would temporarily extend all of the income tax rates, and include a one-year extension of jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, which has started to run out.

With some congressional Democrats fretting that the administration would give in too easily, senior White House officials said Obama was insisting on the jobless aid and the extension of other tax breaks for middle- and lower-income Americans included in the 2009 stimulus plan as a condition of any deal. Republicans said they were considering those demands.

Many other taxes, including the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, and taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, were also part of the talks.

The formal negotiations were being conducted by senior lawmakers from both parties, along with the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the White House budget director, Jacob Lew. But there were also direct talks under way between the West Wing and Republicans, including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

McConnell accused Democrats of holding show votes for political reasons but said he was optimistic that a solution would be reached before Congress adjourns.

“I am relatively confident that the end of this process will lead us into, I think, a very sensible decision not to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession,’’ he said.

The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he was hopeful an agreement would be reached by Wednesday, allowing the Senate to move forward with a busy end-of-year agenda.

But some Senate Democrats were growing increasingly angry at the administration and wary of a deal. In a sign of the deepening divisions, White House officials had voiced opposition to raising the threshold for the tax breaks to $1 million, saying it would do little to reduce the deficit.

The rejection of that proposal underscored a harsh defeat for Democrats in both the policy debate and on the political messaging front. Some of them lashed out at Republicans in response, accusing them of holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage to secure tax breaks for the wealthy.

“I feel like I am in the twilight zone,’’ said Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. “It’s depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying if you do not give people a tax break on their second million, that nobody gets one.’’

Obama’s preferred plan fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster and advance to a simple majority vote. The vote was 53-36, on the bill adopted by the House to end the cuts on income above $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals.

Republicans voted unanimously against the bill, and they were joined by four Democrats — Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Jim Webb of Virginia — as well as by Senator Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent.

Republicans insisted that allowing the tax rates to expire for the top two income brackets would further hamper the already tepid economic recovery.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/05/senate_rejects_obama_plan_to_end_tax_cuts_for_top_earners/

[Brandon2230]

Thank god!

[meatmen4dinar]

Great news!! To h$#$ with Obama.

[tommy17]

Boy Barry isn't goona be happy about this. Here at christmas time we should've had good news on employement with companys hiring for the hoilday season instead they're laying off.

[waveone]

Gee, that's..................tragic

[Triple xXx]

There should be a flat tax for everyone! Why should the rich pay less taxes than the poor or middle class?

[Pilgrim]

At this point what the dinar investor needs is some good news on capital gains tax. Income tax would not be what we are so concerned about, at least for this investment. If the dinar rv I would gladly pay a 17% long term capital gains and be on my way, if it goes higher that's when I start hiring tax attorneys.

[ronscarpa]

Thank god!

I Second that (+1) Brandon ... "THANK GOD ...!"

Good post PHILLY...(+1)

RON

[xxxgator]

:lol:Amen

[skippy569]

There should be a flat tax for everyone! Why should the rich pay less taxes than the poor or middle class?

I totally agree with you Triple XXX.

[alston82]

so do you really think that this is going to hurt Obama. HE!! No just up middle class folks

[Soldiering4U]

The Flat tax would be good Triple X here is what it means-

A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate.[1] A flat tax may also be called a tax in rem ("against the thing"), such as an excise tax on gasoline of three cents per gallon. Usually the term flat tax refers to household income (and sometimes corporate profits) being taxed at one marginal rate, in contrast with progressive or regressive taxes that vary according to parameters such as income or usage levels. Flat taxes offer simplicity in the tax code, which has been reported to increase compliance and decrease administration costs.[2]

Flat taxes that allow a tax exemption for household income below a cutoff level are not true proportional taxes, because, for household incomes below the cutoff level, taxable income is less than total income.

However a Fare Tax is this-

The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal government tax laws of the United States intended to replace all federal income taxes[1] with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales.[2] The plan has been introduced into the United States Congress as the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 296). The tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.[3][4] The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation for the first year, is 23% of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[5] The rate would then be automatically adjusted annually based on federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.[6]

With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[4] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[7][8] Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class.[5][9] Supporters contend that the plan would decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base, effectively taxing wealth, and increasing purchasing power.[10][11] The plan's supporters also argue that a consumption tax would have a positive effect on savings and investment, that it would ease tax compliance, and that the tax would result in increased economic growth, incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increased U.S. competitiveness in international trade.[12][13][14] Opponents contend that a consumption tax of this size would be extremely difficult to collect, and would lead to pervasive tax evasion.[5][7] They also argue that the proposed sales tax rate would raise less revenue than the current tax system, leading to an increased budget deficit.[5][15]

In recent years, a tax reform movement has formed behind the FairTax proposal.[16] Increased support was created after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2005 and additional visibility was gained in the 2008 presidential campaign. A number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the bill; however, it has not moved from committee since its introduction in 1999 and has yet to have any effect on the tax system. The plan is expected to increase cost transparency for funding the federal government, and supporters believe it would have positive effects on civil liberties, the environment, and advantages with taxing illegal activity and illegal immigrants.[12][17] There are concerns regarding the proposed repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, removal of tax deduction incentives, transition effects on after-tax savings, incentives on credit use, and the loss of tax advantages to state and local bonds.

The Fair tax has been denied by dirty scum-bag liberals because their buddies in Washington will not get to line their pockets with your hard earned money any longer... Trust me in the event of a RV you want the FAIR TAX!!!!

[ekfinn]

There should be a flat tax for everyone! Why should the rich pay less taxes than the poor or middle class?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your logic when you say specifically, "Why should the rich pay less taxes than the poor or middle class?" I will keep my argument based solely on Federal Income Tax as other taxes depend largely on where one resides. While I agree that a flat tax would be far better and far fairer than the regressive communist model that our nation has been using since the dawn of the IRS (coinciding with the effective death of the 4th Amendment to our Constitution), your statement still rests upon a slippery slope. With a flat income tax, the "rich" will still be shouldering the vast majority of the burden. Let us cover some figures regarding our current rates for further discussion:

- 47% of Americans have NO income tax burden as of 2009 due to either income level, credits, or exemptions. This figure is from 2009 and is up significantly from the 38% free-rider figure for 2007, and down slightly from the 2008 figure of 48%. Take a GOOD look at that number and remember that half of the entire country is shouldering the burden for the other half, and of that half shouldering the burden, but of that half, there is quite a huge disparity of burden. Ask yourself what happens when we cross the tipping point and more than half of the citizenry demand that the remaining minority shoulder all the burden?

- When one looks at rates, the tax burden actually INCREASES for the rich when their rate DECREASES. The rich are the ones hiring, investing, generating capital and financial activity. When Reagan gutted the top earner rate to 50% from the Kennedy-Johnson rate of 70%, and then finally to 28% after the 1986 Tax Reform Act, federal tax revenue collected exploded from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. Letting the rich keep a larger percent of the fruits of their labors results in them having a vastly larger pool of taxable income due to incentive.

Thomas Coleman Andrews was the first commissioner of the IRS and resigned in protest after he saw the disgusting ideal it stood for. He had this to say in his final memo as commissioner:

"Congress went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion."

"The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds."

"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."

"The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."

"As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well."

"The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."

"I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves..."

---

While a flat income tax would be far better than what we have, and far simpler, it still does not address the issue that a man's civic duty, responsibility, or whatever you want to call it, is in fact increased merely because he is better adept at turning the wheels of commerce. It removes the ability of a man to keep what he earns and keep his affairs private as government auditors can always check the books, even with a simple flat tax.

I think you need to start looking into the fact that the United States rose to be a world power without income tax, but with free men freely pursuing their own self interests. As far as a system of taxation, I think you need to look in the direction of a consumption tax on new retail goods and services. This way one has a direct influence over how much tax he pays, and the government is forced into a position of relying upon protecting the environment of commerce in order to raise revenue. This would be the greatest transfer of power back to the people in our nation's history.

Oh yeah... the communist-in-chief snuck in a juicy little amendment to the IRS code attached to Obamacare that requires all firearms owned be claimed on 2010 tax returns, and a tax levied on all firearms.

Ain't the IRS grand?

[powerpager]

Obamanos !!!!

Obamanos !!!!

[Russ63]

This should not be about taxes. This should be about QUIT SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE! Its pretty simple if you cant afford it dont buy it. And I dont mean if you can just afford the payment either.

But what do I know Im 31 years old and I will be 100% debt free by the later part of next year. NO home loan no car loan no credit cards nothing, Thanks Dave Ramsey.

[Banjolatusak]

This should not be about taxes. This should be about QUIT SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE! Its pretty simple if you cant afford it dont buy it. And I dont mean if you can just afford the payment either.

But what do I know Im 31 years old and I will be 100% debt free by the later part of next year. NO home loan no car loan no credit cards nothing, Thanks Dave Ramsey.

Amen Brother! 7 years ago I was taking home $60,000 a year and living paycheck to paycheck. At one point I was forced to re-assess my lifestyle and change my career. Today I'm debt-free and have more money in the bank than I've had in my entire life, all the while making half as much. How did I do it you ask? I drive a truck... a big one. Although it doesn't afford me the same lifestyle that most of you are familiar with, I'm able still to enrich my life by buying and reading books, seeing movies, enjoying sporting events and concerts, playing poker, meeting new and interesting poeple, and generally enjoying life without the burden debt. And just a reminder...If trucks don't move, America stops.

[Doc31]

Thanks for the post!

[moethai]

I totally agree with you Triple XXX.

You're a real a@@!! Both of you!

[spok1]

These ding dongs would rase everyones taxes just because they are just stupid and dont care about the people.I wish we could have a whole senate of Rand Pauls and Marcos.They would only have to work one or two days a year.Just stay out of our lives.

[EBJNYC]

There should be a flat tax for everyone! Why should the rich pay less taxes than the poor or middle class?

The same way you feel about the RICH in the U.S.A. Somewhere in the WORLD someone feels about YOU and the INCOME you make here in the U.S.A. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. You may be POOR or MIDDLE CLASS here in the U.S. -- but in the WORLD you are VERY WEALTHY to some of the poor on the GLOBE.

Edited December 6, 2010 by EBJNYC