I put the End Times logo on this because that’s only way (OK, elections may have something to do with this) that one can explain Repubs having become spending fanatics while Dems are pushing tax cuts.
Democrats Seek to Lead the Way in Tax Overhaul
House Democratic leaders, in an effort to upstage Republicans on the issue of tax cuts, are preparing legislation that would permanently shield all but the very richest taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax, which is likely to affect tens of millions of families as early as next year if it is left unchanged.
The effort, which lawmakers emphasize is still in its early stages, would exempt millions of people from the tax but would have to come up with a way to offset an enormous loss of revenue in the next decade. Measured in dollars, it would be far bigger than Democratic initiatives to provide money for children’s health care, education or any other spending program.
The republicans these days are WORSE than the old ‘tax and spend’ liberal – they’re ‘spend, but don’t bother to tax and drive the country deeper into debt and leave a stinking dog turd for the next guy to deal with’.
The problem with the republicans these days is that they’ve lost their way. The neocons are destroying good old fashioned small-government conservatism. I want government small, efficient, cheap, and out of my business. Neocons are making it big, wasteful, intrusive, and unsustainable because they refuse to admit that they’re spending money like a rap star. I’ve been a republican voter my whole life, but I’m giving very serious consideration to voting libertarian next time around.
republicans are not fiscally responsible, any body who lived through 12 years of reagan/bush will remember that they had deficits out the wazoo too.
republicans like deficits because then they can say that they cannot afford school lunches for little children — it helps them sleep at night i guess.
#1 – Patrick, excellent point!!
Imagine what might happen if a true fiscal conservative ran against a true liberal. Wouldn’t that be a good election? But, yes, it is also possible to be liberal and fiscally conservative. Such an individual would recognize that in order to provide the necessary benefits of a modern democracy, like a good education and universal health care, taxes must be levied. As long as the books are balanced, it’s still conservative, albeit NOT small government.
Bush initially portrayed himself as benevolent and kindly. He didn’t mention it, but he sees and conducts himself more as King (benevolent and kindly); and, why not he practically inherited his power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But now we see the Republicans for what they are, it’s disgusting. When the Dems seemed to have all the power they where the disgusting group, Clinton just added icing to the cake (the stain to Monica’s dress).
Drastic reforms are needed to be made to campaign financing and lobbiest influence if we want a government for the people by the people again. To me, that seems to be all everyone is asking for, a people responsive government.
Why all the tax increases and little to show for it, mostly government inefficiency. That needs to be addressed too, but we don’t have the system to do so. Government is not a business, no competition to spur system efficiencies. Tax cuts alone hasn’t reformed the system.
We need a working affordable government that strengthens us, not tear us down like the IRAQ war is.
The only time I’ve seen anyone care about the deficit, it was a Republican Congress. And they got killed politically for it, even while they balanced the budget.
This tax cut is just an elimination of AMT which is hitting plenty of ‘middle class’ people nowadays. That is people making over $150,000. This is being heard in lots of Democrat states which generally pay more in taxes than they get back from the government. I’ll believe the Dmeocrats are serious when they actually cut those top tax rates like JFK did, or like the democrat congresses of the 80s. Instead, this congress appears ready to balance this AMT with a tax hike.
First, I’ll believe it when I see it. Politicians have never been trustworthy, especially when it comes to not raising taxes and doubly so when it comes to Democrats. I would bet they are going to try to add taxes somewhere else to “make up” for the tax break.
Second, why are they making the floor at $200K a year? $200K a year is not wealthy in say New York. In order for the AMT concept to work, it has to apply to those that are considered extremely wealthy in any State or city.
Third, the problem we have right now is NOT A REVENUE problem. It is a SPENDING problem. The tax cuts that were instituted have increased tax revenue. The deficit is due to insane amounts of spending. The tax cuts were the right move and had their effect. Unfortunately, Congress and the President turned around and spent that additional money and the some.
It’s because Democrats are now centrists, rather than liberals.
I get flamed when I say this, but it’s true. The Republican party swung so extremely far right that it pulled the Dems to the center.
Extremists don’t give a fig for fiscal responsibility. That’s a centrist issue.
Imagine that – more political tax code wrangling to prove that it and equal protection/equal justice have nothing to do with each other. If there were no deductions and credits, there would be no need for the AMT in the first place, even if we left in place the Marx inspired progressive tax rates. And if we switched to a consumption tax instead, none of this would even matter; plus we could remove politics from the equation.
Meanwhile, the democratic budget calls for an increase in taxes. In response to question in the title, no one is really interested in lowering taxes any more than they already are.
Can you say AMT? You’re screwed. if you can.
It is hard to make a case that the Democrats are cutting the overall level of taxation. Changing around some figures in the AMT will certainly help the economy if they can manage to reduce it, but that has to coincide with a decrease in government spending. As of now, I have yet to see the new Congress push forward measures of decreasing federal spending.
In fact, the Democrats are following the Republican standard of increasing government spending in the FY2008. The Democrats campaigned against earmark and pork spending, but they seem to have fallen in love with the legislative measures all the same (Kimberly Strassel on this: http://tinyurl.com/2t8v3b). So if the Democrats are to adhere to their promise of a balanced budget, they’ll have to find an alternative route.
Enter the wonderful world of taxation, propelled by a beautiful “paygo” scheme. Several pundits and politicians alike, a dangerous mix no doubt, have been weary of the plethora of new tax measures that the FY2008, and beyond, promises. The proposed budget outlines, which include repealing the Bush tax cuts, will constitute the largest tax increase in America’s history. I’m having flashbacks to 1993 when an analogous move cost the Democrats the House.
Democrats make the money, Republicans spend it; it’s that simple.