Bushes Tax cuts still on the table

[OntarioVanMan]

tough situation..if he extends the cuts it will add 2.2 TRILLION to the deficit over 10 years..or does he keep his promise in an election year...a no win situation...

Fate of Bush tax cuts unclear - Jul. 7, 2010

The cost of doing so for everyone would top $3 trillion over 10 years. Making them permanent for families making less than $250,000 -- which tracks with Obama's promise -- would cost less but not much less: an estimated $2.2 trillion.

Two prominent Senate Democrats recently told The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress, that the $250,000 threshold is not necessarily a done deal with Congress.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, said he didn't think there was "any magic" in $250,000. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted "you could go lower ... why not $200,000? With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."

Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee is considering a one-year extension of the tax cuts for families making less than $250,000, according to a report in Congress Daily. The extension would be accompanied by a two-year "patch" to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. The estimated cost of those measures combined is $270 billion over 10 years.

 

[greg334]

The problem is that the entire package needs to stay in place, not just selected parts of it. It will be a tough sell, if at all but I don't think it will happen because it sounds like more election rhetoric.

The republicans should have made them perminate, not something that had a sunset.

 

[layoutshooter]

Lower taxes do not add to the deficit, only spending more than you take in does. Stop spending. Raising tax rates normally tend to lower revenues over the long haul. Lowering tax rates tend to raise revenue. Just ask JFK.

 

[xiggi]

The problem is that the entire package needs to stay in place, not just selected parts of it. It will be a tough sell, if at all but I don't think it will happen because it sounds like more election rhetoric.

The republicans should have made them perminate, not something that had a sunset.

They did not have the votes to make them perminate. They had to use reconciliation to pass them and because of that I think it had to have the sunset clause.

 

[layoutshooter]

They did not have the votes to make them perminate. They had to use reconciliation to pass them and because of that I think it had to have the sunset clause.

They were ReBumLiCans, just like the Dumb-O-Crats, everything they do is for show. They don't care about anything but their own power and enrichment.

We need to elect people that have a belief in our way of life and Constitution and the "stones" to act on those beliefs.

 

[greg334]

They did not have the votes to make them perminate. They had to use reconciliation to pass them and because of that I think it had to have the sunset clause.

I know what you are saying but honestly that's a bunch of political BS. They rammed through enough stuff under the republican congress with comprises made at each turn with the dems, they could have worked this through too.

 

[xiggi]

Yes..a constitution the writers knew would be sometime outdated by the advancement of American wants and needs...
They knew it wouldn't stand as is forever...if they did, they would not have included a way to add and subtract amendments...

Your right to bad so many people want to use the courts to change it instead.

 

[greg334]

Yes..a constitution the writers knew would be sometime outdated by the advancement of American wants and needs...
They knew it wouldn't stand as is forever...if they did, they would not have included a way to add and subtract amendments...

Actually OVM, you have it all wrong. The Constitution spells out two important things that many outside the country fail to get - it is about fundamental rights within a fundamental system that works.

There has yet to be another country that has governed outside a monarchy for as long as we have and our entire system is based on this people grant the government the right to operate.

The system within the constitution to change part of it is actually a hard sell for a very good reason. These founding fathers knew that if the country went on changing the parts of it at a whim, then we would not last at all, even within their lifetime. By putting the changes into the hands of the states and making it difficult, they put the power to keep the constitution as the supreme document of law of the land for as long as the people felt it was needed in the hands of those who actually hold the power.

The entire document isn't outdated, to be exact it's just the opposite.

Look at what other attempts have been made in the last century with our enlightened modern culture and the clusterf*** mess these attempts turned out to be. If you want to see outdated stuff, look at the constitution of Canada, GB, Germany and France (among others) - all of which tries to right wrongs based on emotion, race, creed with the government granting freedoms and privileges to the people. They all are top heavy documents defining the rights of the people who are governed by them, not defining the rights of the government to limit itself.

Canada for example does not have free speech, it has conditional free speech but not anything near freedom of speech. If you offend someone, you can be charged with a crime, just for offending someone - pretty archaic when you come down to it.

Another example was the UK between 1915 and 1935 going restricting some evidential procedures within the court system in regards of specific crimes that were social based. I remember reading a case of a teacher who was accused of being gay. He wasn't afforded the rights of others who committed murder but rather not afforded bail, had a very quick trial with two witnesses and then a 20 year sentence. All of it was based on the complaint of a student who was out for revenge.

You can easily forget that the authors of our founding documents didn't look just to Europe to fight the wrongs that were inflicted on the people of the colonies but looked to the past, including Rome and Greece histories. History was and still is very important, it took a lot of thinking to come up with a short document that governed a nation for 234 years.

 

[xiggi]

and from what I've learned some of the wording in the US Constitution comes directly from the Freemasons Constitution...
there are a least 8 phrases copied directly from the Freemasons....

And your point is?