President’s Tax Relief

[Guest Bush 4 President]

“The big issue for every American family is the federal tax burden. With the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was President, we've left more money in the hands that earned it. By spending and investing and helping to create new jobs, the American people have used their money far better than the federal government could have.”

-President George W. Bush, 3/25/04

 

April 15, 2004: Tax Day

 

As Americans across the country file their tax returns today, America’s families, small businesses, low income taxpayers, couples, seniors, and parents will see higher refunds or lower tax bills thanks to the tax relief signed into law by President George W. Bush.

 

As a result of the President’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, every American who would have paid income taxes before the tax relief was enacted in 2001 will receive a tax cut in 2004.

 

The President’s tax cuts mean significant tax relief for Americans this year:

 

111 million individuals and families will receive an average tax cut of $1,586 in 2004 because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

49 million married couples will have an average tax cut of $2,602.

43 million families with children will receive an average tax cut of $2,090.

14 million elderly individuals will see their taxes fall, on average, by $1,883.

25 million small business owners will receive an average tax cut of $3,001.

Nearly 5 million taxpayers, including 4 million taxpayers with children, will have their income tax liability completely eliminated in 2004. (Department of the Treasury, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/

js1315.htm)

A Growing Economy Shows President Bush’s Policies Are Working

 

The tax relief proposed and signed into law by President Bush was the right action at the right time. Tax relief has reinvigorated the U.S. economy and is driving job creation.

 

By the last quarter of 2003, the tax relief signed by President Bush had:

 

Reduced the unemployment rate by nearly 1 percentage point below where it would have been otherwise;

Increased the jobs available to Americans by as many as 2 million; and

Increased real GDP by as much as 3 percent. (Department of the Treasury, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1315.htm)

Recent economic data is a powerful confirmation that the pro-growth economic policies of this administration are working. There are hopeful signs for America’s workers, families, and small businesses:

 

The economy is now in a strong recovery, with a GDP growth rate of 6.1 percent in the last half of 2003 – the fastest six-month growth rate in nearly 20 years. Leading private forecasts are projecting growth of four percent plus for the 2004 year, well above historical growth rates. The latest Blue Chip report forecast GDP would grow 4.6 percent in 2004, the highest in 20 years.

According to the payroll survey, 308,000 new jobs were created in March – the largest monthly increase since April 2000 -- and 759,000 jobs have been added over the last 7 months.

The national unemployment rate was 5.7% in March – far below its peak of 6.3% in June 2003, and below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Oer the past year, the unemployment rate has fallen in 45 of the 50 states.

Productivity continues to fuel growth in the U.S. economy. Productivity growth from 2000 to 2003 was the fastest 3-year growth in more than 50 years.

Consumer confidence is above its mark a year ago, suggesting that Americans feel more secure about their finances and broader economic conditions.

Retail sales rose 1.8 percent in March, well above market expectations, in the biggest increase since March 2003.

Orders for durable goods — costly manufactured products that are expected to last at least three years — rose by 2.5 percent in February, the largest rise since July 2002.

The February increase in exports was the largest since the fall of 1996.

U.S. household wealth hit a record high at the end of 2003 – passing the previous peak in the first quarter of 2000.

Inflation, interest rates and mortgage rates are near historic lows.

The U.S. manufacturing industry grew for the ninth straight month in February and approached a 20-year high.

Housing construction in 2003 was the strongest in 25 years, and homeownership levels are at historic highs.

Since calendar year 2001, the U.S. economy has grown more than twice as fast as the economies of the European Union and Japan, and faster than any other economy in the G7 group of industrialized countries including Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

John Kerry Would Raise Taxes on Hard-Working Americans

 

President Bush has provided the kind of steady, principled leadership on the economy that the American people are looking for. John Kerry, on the other hand, would raise taxes just as the economy is growing and creating new jobs.

 

Over the course of his career, John Kerry has voted for more spending not less, and higher taxes not lower. He has voted for higher taxes more than 350 times, and he has consistently flunked the scorecards of tax watchdog groups, including Americans For Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

 

Voters face a very clear choice – between keeping the tax relief that is moving this economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people.

[Guest B.D.]

If Bush was truly interested in tax relief, he'd pursue eliminating the various loopholes that permit the wealthy to avoid paying taxes altogether!

 

Those who derive their income from investments pay no taxes whatsoever!

 

That's because these folks are predominantly Republican voters and they contribute to Bush campaigns.

 

The rest (the vast majority) who's income is in the form of a paycheck get screwed! They saw little if any tax relief!

 

That's because many vote Democratic. This is the party that truly represents the interests of the wage earner. The Repugnicans represent only the corporate stockholders!

 

Blue collar Republican voters are duped by non-issues (flag burning, abortion, 'defending' marriage, bogus patriotism, Christianity, etc.) into thinking that the Repugnicans are like them! These folks don't realize how they are being manipulated...

 

And Repugnicans mislead them by labeling Democrats as 'liberal' (a word which actually means open to considering new ideas on their merits, but is now a code word in Repugnican jargan for race baiting!)

[Guest LAW]

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 11/30/2010

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

1:45 P.M. EST

 

MR. GIBBS: Mr. Feller.

 

Q Thanks, Robert. A few follow-up questions on the meeting with lawmakers. On taxes, the President outlined this accelerated negotiation process to come up with some sensible common ground, as he called it. Did he suggest at all that he would be open to a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy? Did he lay any markers down at all?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, the -- I think both sides started and discussed where each had been on -- that our priority was ensuring that, as you heard the President say in his statement, that we make permanent tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire at the end of this year, and to reiterate our concern for borrowing $700 billion over the next 10 years in making tax cuts for those in excess of $250,000 permanent.

I think the Republicans restated their notion of making the wealthy tax cuts permanent.

 

So the President wanted to -- as, again, you heard him say -- get to the process of having some of those discussions by asking Secretary Geithner and OMB Director Jack Lew to sit down with four members or senators appointed by -- one each -- by Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi and Representative Boehner. And I anticipate that those conversations could happen as early as later today -- or start as early as today.

 

Q But you had -- it sounds like you started -- I’m sorry, it sounds like you ended where you started with these broad philosophical differences about those tax cuts for the wealthy. So what gives the President confidence that this negotiation process is going to be productive?

 

MR. GIBBS: What I think was the foundation for this -- for, quite frankly, the whole meeting was we have to do -- we have to do things that ensure continued economic strengthening and job creation. We have to deal with our long-term -- with our short-term deficits and our long-term debt. And we have to ensure the safety and the security of the American people.

 

So Secretary Geithner and NEC Director Summers both said -- both gave very quick descriptions of sort of where we thought the economy was. And everybody, I think, as the President said, in the room agreed that this was an issue that we needed to get finished by the end of the year, before the tax cuts expired. And that’s the charge that he gave to Tim and to Jack. And I anticipate -- again, I anticipate they’ll meet relatively soon.

 

Q A couple other quick ones, please. Senator McConnell said that his caucus was united on doing the tax issues and the appropriations issues in lame duck first, and then if there’s time left getting to some of the other pressing matters. The President brought up START in his own description but didn’t seem to acknowledge any forward progress. Is the White House willing to take up that issue in January if need be?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think there was a robust discussion about how that could be done in a lame duck. I think you’ve heard senators even today discuss the likelihood of being able to get that done.

 

Look, the tax issue may take a little bit. But the Senate and the House will be here. And I think we believe that that’s an issue -- START is an issue that can get done this year.

 

Q You still think it is?

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely.

 

Q And, finally, on the broader issue of cooperation, I heard Representative Boehner and Cantor say, in their words, that the President -- I’m paraphrasing -- the President acknowledged he had not reached out enough to them. Is that a fair portrayal?

 

MR. GIBBS: It is. I think the President acknowledged that he needed to do better and acknowledged that -- rightly that he would do his part. I think there was a -- there was common ground reached in the notion, again, as you heard the President say in his statement, that the American people didn’t vote for gridlock. They didn’t vote for the continual games that we see played in Washington. They voted for two parties working together to get something done. That’s going to take -- it’s going to take just that, bipartisanship. And that’s the only way we’re going to make progress. And I think this meeting, which we -- which we set up, is the beginning of that.

 

Yes, sir.

 

Q Robert, thanks very much. To come back to this idea of common ground on the tax cuts, specifically, what would the White House be willing to compromise on? For instance, would the President favor extending --

 

MR. GIBBS: I was in the meeting, but the President did not tap me to be one of those negotiators. So I’m going to let Jack and Tim get into that as soon as we have the appointment of those members and senators from the designated leaders. And, again, I anticipate that they’ll begin talking as early as today.

 

Q But does the President favor extending all the tax cuts for two or three years?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the President’s most urgent desire is to see that taxes do not go up on the middle class. And we’re going to go from there.

 

Q The President mentioned a possible meeting out at Camp David. Is there a timeframe for that? And also a sense of who you’d invite -- would it just be restricted to lawmakers? Or could it be extended to the business community, for example?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the meeting that the President talked about with -- and I should -- just for a second, let me step back and talk about a little bit of the structure of the meeting because I’m going to speak about this, but I was not in this part of the meeting.

 

The meeting lasted approximately two hours -- probably a little less than two hours. The last 35 minutes was the President and the Vice President and the members of the House and the Senate, without staff, without Secretary Geithner, without OMB Director Lew in the private dining room right off of the Oval Office. So in that 35 minutes, the President -- that’s where the President brought up the idea -- and they talked about it throughout the meeting, the idea of continuing these conversations, and threw out the hope that -- and I think it was agreed -- loosely agreed upon that sometime in the beginning of next year, they would continue this meeting at Camp David.

 

Q Why did the President ask the staff to leave? Was it that they were no longer needed at that point? Did he want to have a more intimate conversation?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think to have a little bit more intimate conversation.

 

Q And when you talked about the President telling Republicans, as they describe, that he had not done enough to reach out to them, did he offer an apology at all?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, he said that -- he took responsibility for that. And as I said, in order to have bipartisanship, we have to do this both ways. And the President is ready to do his part.

 

Q I’m still a bit confused about the divide that still exists on these tax cuts. If the President still thinks that $700 billion is more than the country can afford, how can there be any compromise at all? And I know you don’t want to negotiate this now, but it seems like the divide is so wide.

MR. GIBBS: Look, I’m not going to enumerate -- I wouldn’t enumerate all the property lines, but I think it’s safe to say that -- I think it is safe to say, the President reiterated, that the notion of a -- the notion of a permanent -- the notion of making permanent tax cuts for those on the upper end of our income scale, the predominance of which go to millionaires and billionaires, is not something that -- not something that making permanent would -- he doesn’t believe would make sense. It’s a $700 billion expenditure over -- because we do these in a 10-year budget window. So I think that’s -- I think as he did in his statement -- enumerated where he is on that.

 

Q You said that the President, and in fact, the President said that he acknowledged he had not reached out enough and would do his part. But you just told Jake that the Republicans did not make a similar statement. Does the President believe that they should have?

 

MR. GIBBS: Let me do this, Chip. No, I don’t -- look, I’m not -- I’ve got my hands full being the spokesperson for the President. And, look, this was not something that was prompted. The President -- I think the President just laid out that in order for us to work together we’re going to have to communicate better. We’re going to have to reach out --

 

Q But he also said he had not reached out enough. Does he believe the Republicans -- it’s a two-way street -- does he believe they have not reached out?

 

MR. GIBBS: I didn’t ask the President that. Again, I’d leave that up to others. The President was, I think, pretty clear about the fact that -- in acknowledging that he needed to and would do better.

 

Q Even if they don’t?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I can only speak for the actions of what the President intends to do and what the President told leaders today.

 

Q So his reaching out is not -- reaching out more is not contingent upon their returning the favor?

 

MR. GIBBS: His reaching out is contingent upon the fact that he’s the President of the United States and in order to get things done in what will now be a divided government requires working with the other side.

 

Q It sounds like he’s willing to bend even if they don’t.

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t -- the President is willing to have a better line of communication with Republicans on Capitol Hill to get something done. I don’t -- I’m not sure I’d call that “bending.” I call that trying to work together.

 

I think that’s incidentally likely what the American people call it, too.

 

Q Okay. Just wanted to make sure. And on the tax issue, do you think there was a breakthrough in the meeting? Was this a meeting that constituted a breakthrough?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say two things. One, there is a -- we have an agreed-upon, appointed process for the continuing of those conversations to happen very quickly. And, again, I will try to get as much information as I can throughout the day and share with you all about the progress and the scheduling for those meetings.

 

I also think that the notion that there was agreement that this is an issue that needed to be dealt with by the end of the year, I think those two things give -- I think they give the President and I hope they give others hope that we can work together.

 

Q Do you think there’s any chance whatsoever that the tax issue will not be resolved by the end of the year?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would hate to say never. I think there is a extremely strong likelihood that the issue is resolved prior to the tax cuts expiring at the end of this year. And I think there is -- I think there was strong agreement to do that. And I think -- I think there was an acknowledgment on the part of all those involved that we have a window of time to work together on this issue. We’ve got a little more than a month to come to a conclusion on that and we ought to be able to do so. So I think the President believes we can get that done.

 

Q More than a month? We could be here like New Year’s Eve, I take it.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I guess we’ve got 31 days. I don’t know how many --

 

Q It sounds like New Year’s Eve.

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t anticipate being here on New Year’s Eve, but we’ll see.

 

Q So, Robert, is the next step the OMB director, the Treasury secretary and representatives of the different camps getting together and trying to hammer this out? Or what’s --

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And, again, I will -- the way they left it in the meeting, there was an agreement that we would have this group of people do this. The Vice President, I think rightly so, pushed to have a meeting as quickly as possible. And like I said, it could happen as early as today.

 

Q Is the Democratic position on the tax cuts truly unified? I mean, publicly it sounded like maybe the President was ready for compromise, but perhaps some of the leaders on the Hill were not as eager to compromise.

 

MR. GIBBS: How so?

 

Q Well, maybe they were just saying it’s got to be the middle class and no higher-income extension.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, look, everybody went in with the position that they brought to that meeting. And I think the President enumerated the position, as he said in the statement, that he and his fellow Democrats hold, and that is our priority is to ensure that those that are in the middle class in this country that have, as he said during the meeting, have been hurt throughout the past decade in terms of watching their wages go down even as they were working longer and working harder, that we had to do all that we could to ensure that for that group of people, their taxes didn’t go up. So I think that -- I think Democrats are very unified in that.

 

Q Back to the meeting with the congressional leaders, was there an agreement among everybody in the room that there wouldn’t be a whole bunch of votes on the floor until this smaller group with Lew and --

 

MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. I mean, I can go back and check with others and see what their impression was. But, again --

 

Q So it’s still possible that the House -- it’s still possible that there are other votes on --

 

MR. GIBBS: I anticipate that the -- I think the next vote on taxes, if I’m not mistaken, and I’ll double-check on this, is that there will be a vote in the House on making permanent middle-class tax cuts. I anticipate that --

 

Q So there was no agreement of taking that off the table while --

 

MR. GIBBS: I’d anticipate that that --

 

Q -- while this group worked itself out a compromise?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think that goes forward.

 

Q Thank you. A couple questions. One, the President said in his statement that on the tax cut negotiations he hoped to get some answers back over the next couple of days. So does that mean that he’s hoping that there is an agreement within the next couple of days?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we can -- look, if you could get an agreement today, that’d be great. I think what the President is saying is we want to continue to see forward progress on this.

 

Again, the agreement to come out of this meeting with those that would sit down, again, as soon as later today, I think give the President some hope. And as soon as I have updates on that schedule, we’ll let you know.

 

Q I mean, but is he setting up an expectation that he’s hoping to have a deal within a matter of a few days?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think the President is setting up the expectation that we’ll all get in the same room and continue to make progress on this over the next few days.

 

Q Robert, did anybody raise the nature of the campaign rhetoric that came up before the election?

 

MR. GIBBS: Do you mean Slurpees?

 

Q Well, I wasn’t going to mention that by name, but as long as you brought it up.

 

MR. GIBBS: Slurpees were not mentioned. My apologies to 7-Eleven. No, I mean, look, I think there was an acknowledgment, honestly, Mark, by everybody that an election had come and gone, and that after elections there is a time in which both parties are responsible for governing the country. The President mentioned and I think others mentioned that -- the acknowledgment that not soon after one election passes, you enter the political season again, but that he believed -- the President certainly believes that there’s a time in which we can seek common ground, that we can work together and that we can make progress on these issues; that there’ll be plenty of time for -- there will be plenty of time for a political campaign in 2012. And I would -- I think the President’s line in his statement that -- acknowledged and agreed to by those in the room -- that it’s time to put our focus on their jobs, the jobs of the American people, not on the jobs of the elected officials that sit in that room.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

House Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-OH) participated in a media availability today following a meeting at the White House of President Obama and congressional leaders. The meeting served as an opportunity to discuss the priorities of the American people, who want us to focus on creating jobs by stopping all the tax hikes and cutting spending. This is the approach Republicans laid out in the Pledge to America, a governing agenda built by listening to the people.

 

“It’s encouraging to see President Obama acknowledge that the American people want us to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, but now it’s time to act,” Boehner said in a statement after the meeting. “If President Obama and Democratic leaders come up with a plan in the lame-duck session to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes, they can expect a positive response from Republicans. If the lame-duck Congress is unable or unwilling to act, the new House majority will in January.”

 

Boehner also noted that President Obama has asked congressional leaders of both parties to select lawmakers to meet with Administration officials in the coming days regarding the looming tax hikes scheduled to take effect on January 1st. Boehner announced that Ways & Means Committee Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI) would be the House GOP designee in these discussions.

 

Boehner added, “We appreciate President Obama’s interest in having informal discussions on stopping all the tax hikes, and we hope these talks are productive. At the same time, this is no substitute for action. Republicans made a pledge to America to cut spending and permanently stop all the tax hikes, and that’s exactly what we’re fighting for

[Guest LAW]

Pelosi: Tax Cut Legislation Gives Middle-Income Families Fairness and the Economic Opportunity to Create Jobs

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this afternoon in support of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, which passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 234 to 188. Below are the Speaker’s remarks.

 

“Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman [Mr. Levin] for yielding. I commend him for his great leadership in terms of working and being a champion for America’s working families, for America’s middle-income families who need so much help at this time of this down economy.

 

“Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting week. Yesterday, hundreds of people looking for work came to the Capitol of the United States. They came because they knew that the day before, unemployment insurance benefits had expired for people looking for work. They knew that by the end of December, unless this Congress acts, 2 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. 2 million Americans.

 

“This is the first time in American history when unemployment benefits would have been allowed to expire at this rate of unemployment. They came looking for jobs. They came in the spirit of fairness to say: ‘Until we can find jobs, we need to continue unemployment insurance.’ And what they heard was that the Republicans in the Senate had said, ‘If you want unemployment insurance, it has to be paid for.’ Well they have paid into unemployment insurance. ‘But we want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America to the tune of $700 billion and that doesn’t have to be paid for.’

 

“Now I think we should use a measure for everything that we do—what does it do to create jobs, what does it do to reduce the deficit? Unemployment insurance, economists tell us, returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance. People need the money. They spend it immediately for necessity. It injects demand into the economy. It creates jobs to help reduce the deficit. Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit. And the record and history show it does not create jobs. It does not create jobs.

 

 

“I mention this because it is the context in which we bring up this tax cut for middle-income families in America today. And while some on the other side say this is not going to make a difference, it indeed makes a difference. Let me say unequivocally, there will be no tax bill for any situation unless there is a tax cut for middle-income people in our country. That is what this vote is about today. That is our declaration. That is what we send to the table for the discussion that the President has so rightfully called for.

 

“Now what our Republican colleagues are saying is—we know they must support tax relief for the middle class, right? And this is tax relief for every income filer, everyone gets a tax break. Well what they are saying is, ‘Unless you give an additional tax break to the wealthiest people in our country, adding to the deficit and not creating jobs, we are not going to vote for middle-income tax cuts.’ As Mr. Hoyer said, ‘Holding the middle-income families of America hostage for a tax cut for the wealthiest.

 

“And who are they? Well, some of them create wealth, create jobs, and we want to reward success in America. And they do get a tax cut in this bill. Some of them are getting bonuses on Wall Street. Did you see the announcement? Almost $90 billion in bonuses on Wall Street after all that they have put us through. Not all of them, but some of them. $90 billion, billion with a ‘b’ dollars, in bonuses. And under what the Republicans want to do, they want a tax break for that. A bonus and a tax break on top of it. But no, we can’t give middle-income tax cuts unless you do that. And no, if we do unemployment insurance it has to be paid for but not a tax break for these billionaires with these bonuses on Wall Street.

 

“This is so grossly unfair. It is so grossly unfair. I can’t imagine that my colleagues on the Republican side don’t want to give a tax cut to the middle class. Why don’t they just go for that? They can try to add whatever else they want and have that debate. But to say that this is not the right thing to do, I think is not the right thing to say.

 

“And so, we have a situation where we come out of an election. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That’s what those hundreds of people looking for work came to Capitol Hill looking for. They were looking for jobs. They were looking for security for their family. One young man, 35 years old, stood up and said, ‘I am 35. I am married. I have a 4-year-old child. I have been out of work for two years. I am a college graduate. I am a trained professional. Don’t tell me to go dip into my savings. My savings are all gone. Don’t tell me to go ask help from my family. I’ve already done that. They’ve done what they can, but they’re strapped as well. Don’t tell me to cut back on what we do as a family. That was something we did a long time ago. And so we can try to live as we look for work on unemployment insurance—insurance. And you are now telling us that Congress cannot pass that unless it is paid for.’

 

“While it is giving, I’m saying, a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America, $700 billion unpaid for, $700 billion to the deficit. Something is very wrong with this picture.

 

“But we come to this floor, we Democrats today, with great clarity. The tax cut for middle-income families will create jobs because people will spend that money, again, inject demand into the economy, and create jobs. That is something that will help. That growth will help to reduce the deficit. While the record shows, and recent history acknowledges that the tax cuts at the high end did not create jobs, those tax cuts were in place during the Bush years. And more private sector jobs have been created this year than the entire eight years of the Bush Administration. They simply did not create jobs.

 

“So if you want to create jobs, if you want to reduce the deficit, if you want to stabilize the economy, if you want to support the value of what the middle class, middle-income families mean to our country—these workers who came were veterans. They were the backbone of our country. They came from the heartland of America. They came from a place where we in this Congress and with this President saved the auto industry, saved the auto industry. Without the measures taken by the Obama Administration and this Congress, we would have unemployment that is even higher. But that is not good enough. We want unemployment that is lower. This tax cut taxes us to that place. This tax cut, not what the Republicans are proposing, will help create jobs instead of what they want to do which is not create jobs and increase the deficit.

 

“So the choice is clear. It’s not about 42 signatures [in the Senate] that ‘I’m not going to do this unless you do that.’ We are very clear: there will be no tax bill unless there is a tax legislation that gives middle-income families of America the fairness they deserve, the respect that they have earned, and the economic opportunity for creation of jobs, reducing the deficit and stabilizing our economy. I think this choice is clear. I urge our colleagues, and I hope we could have some bipartisan support for middle-income families in America, to vote ‘aye’ on this important legislation.

 

“I again salute Mr. Levin for his leadership and yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.”

[Guest LAW]

As President Obama took to the airwaves Monday night to announce a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) called the plan "fiscally irresponsible" and "grossly unfair."

 

In a letter to Speaker Pelosi that Welch circulated to his House colleagues Monday night, Welch wrote, "We support extending tax cuts in full to 98 percent of American taxpayers, as the President initially proposed. He should not back down. Nor should we."

 

Welch will send the letter to Speaker Pelosi after gathering signatures from his colleagues on Tuesday. The full text of the letter is copied below.

 

Dear Madam Speaker,

 

We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two reasons.

 

First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Adding $700 billion to our national debt, as this proposal would do, handcuffs our ability to offer a balanced plan to achieve fiscal stability without a punishing effect on our current commitments, including Social Security and Medicare.

 

Second, it is grossly unfair. This proposal will hurt, not help, the majority of Americans in the middle class and those working hard to get there. Even as Republicans seek to add $700 billion to our national debt, they oppose extending unemployment benefits to workers and resist COLA increases to seniors.

 

Without a doubt, the very same people who support this addition to our debt will oppose raising the debt ceiling to pay for it.

 

We support extending tax cuts in full to 98 percent of American taxpayers, as the President initially proposed. He should not back down. Nor should we.

 

Sincerely,

 

PETER WELCH

Member of Congress

[Guest LAW]

Statement by the President on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits

Room 430

 

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

 

6:32 P.M. EST

 

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Sorry to keep you waiting.

 

For the past few weeks there’s been a lot of talk around Washington about taxes and there’s been a lot of political positioning between the two parties. But around kitchen tables, Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what’s necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work?

 

Now, there’s no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and they are profound. Ever since I started running for this office I've said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans who’ve taken the biggest hit not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery.

 

Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy.

 

This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit.

 

We saw that in two different votes in the Senate that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there’s no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts.

 

I am not willing to let that happen. I know there’s some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession.

 

I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.

 

So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. They would much rather have the comfort of knowing that when they open their first paycheck on January of 2011, it won’t be smaller than it was before, all because Washington decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to act.

 

Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.

 

At the same time, I’m not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And I won’t allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment insurance for Americans who’ve lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working families and small businesses -- because if Republicans truly believe we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses.

As a result, we have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement. For the next two years, every American family will keep their tax cuts -- not just the Bush tax cuts, but those that have been put in place over the last couple of years that are helping parents and students and other folks manage their bills.

 

In exchange for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we will be able to protect key tax cuts for working families -- the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps families climb out of poverty; the Child Tax Credit that makes sure families don’t see their taxes jump up to $1,000 for every child; and the American Opportunity Tax Credit that ensures over 8 million students and their families don’t suddenly see the cost of college shooting up.

 

These are the tax cuts for some of the folks who’ve been hit hardest by this recession, and it would be simply unacceptable if their taxes went up while everybody else’s stayed the same.

 

Now, under this agreement, unemployment insurance will also be extended for another 13 months, which will be welcome relief for 2 million Americans who are facing the prospect of having this lifeline yanked away from them right in the middle of the holiday season.

 

This agreement would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for workers next year -- a tax cut that economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth.

 

And we will prevent -- we will provide incentives for businesses to invest and create jobs by allowing them to completely write off their investments next year. This is something identified back in September as a way to help American businesses create jobs. And thanks to this compromise, it’s finally going to get done.

 

In exchange, the Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted. But we have insisted that that will be temporary.

 

I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like -- namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for jobs. It’s the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it’s the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize.

 

It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery. It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.

 

Building on that momentum is what I’m focused on. It’s what members of Congress should be focused on. And I'm looking forward to working with members of both parties in the coming days to see to it that we get this done before everyone leaves town for the holiday season. We cannot allow this moment to pass.

 

 

And let me just end with this. There’s been a lot of debate in Washington about how this would ultimately get resolved. I just want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not abstract fights for the families that are impacted. Two million people will lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month if we don't get this resolved. Millions more of Americans will see their taxes go up at a time when they can least afford it. And my singular focus over the next year is going to be on how do we continue the momentum of the recovery, how do we make sure that we grow this economy and we create more jobs.

 

We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems. And so I look forward to engaging the House and the Senate, members of both parties, as well as the media, in this debate. But I am confident that this needs to get done, and I'm confident ultimately Congress is going to do the right thing.

 

Thank you very much, everybody.

 

END

 

6:41 P.M. EST

[Guest human]

I hope your group "Law" keeps on playing with this economy. Next quarters numbers are going to be either the same or worse.

 

Your group "Liberal Democrats" want it all of their way. Next year your group will have to actually work with republicans "dreadful thought it must be to you".

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Statement by the President on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits

Room 430

 

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

 

6:32 P.M. EST

 

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Sorry to keep you waiting.

 

For the past few weeks there’s been a lot of talk around Washington about taxes and there’s been a lot of political positioning between the two parties. But around kitchen tables, Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what’s necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work?

 

Now, there’s no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and they are profound. Ever since I started running for this office I've said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans who’ve taken the biggest hit not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery.

 

Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy.

 

This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit.

 

We saw that in two different votes in the Senate that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there’s no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts.

 

I am not willing to let that happen. I know there’s some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession.

 

I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.

 

So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. They would much rather have the comfort of knowing that when they open their first paycheck on January of 2011, it won’t be smaller than it was before, all because Washington decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to act.

 

Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.

 

At the same time, I’m not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And I won’t allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment insurance for Americans who’ve lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working families and small businesses -- because if Republicans truly believe we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses.

As a result, we have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement. For the next two years, every American family will keep their tax cuts -- not just the Bush tax cuts, but those that have been put in place over the last couple of years that are helping parents and students and other folks manage their bills.

 

In exchange for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we will be able to protect key tax cuts for working families -- the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps families climb out of poverty; the Child Tax Credit that makes sure families don’t see their taxes jump up to $1,000 for every child; and the American Opportunity Tax Credit that ensures over 8 million students and their families don’t suddenly see the cost of college shooting up.

 

These are the tax cuts for some of the folks who’ve been hit hardest by this recession, and it would be simply unacceptable if their taxes went up while everybody else’s stayed the same.

 

Now, under this agreement, unemployment insurance will also be extended for another 13 months, which will be welcome relief for 2 million Americans who are facing the prospect of having this lifeline yanked away from them right in the middle of the holiday season.

 

This agreement would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for workers next year -- a tax cut that economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth.

 

And we will prevent -- we will provide incentives for businesses to invest and create jobs by allowing them to completely write off their investments next year. This is something identified back in September as a way to help American businesses create jobs. And thanks to this compromise, it’s finally going to get done.

 

In exchange, the Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted. But we have insisted that that will be temporary.

 

I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like -- namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for jobs. It’s the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it’s the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize.

 

It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery. It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.

 

Building on that momentum is what I’m focused on. It’s what members of Congress should be focused on. And I'm looking forward to working with members of both parties in the coming days to see to it that we get this done before everyone leaves town for the holiday season. We cannot allow this moment to pass.

 

 

And let me just end with this. There’s been a lot of debate in Washington about how this would ultimately get resolved. I just want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not abstract fights for the families that are impacted. Two million people will lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month if we don't get this resolved. Millions more of Americans will see their taxes go up at a time when they can least afford it. And my singular focus over the next year is going to be on how do we continue the momentum of the recovery, how do we make sure that we grow this economy and we create more jobs.

 

We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems. And so I look forward to engaging the House and the Senate, members of both parties, as well as the media, in this debate. But I am confident that this needs to get done, and I'm confident ultimately Congress is going to do the right thing.

 

Thank you very much, everybody.

 

END

 

6:41 P.M. EST

[Guest Jason Mattera]

Make no mistake about it, Obama’s announcement that he’ll keep all tax rates at the current levels is a huge victory for the GOP. Here’s a man who banked his presidential run on rescinding “tax cuts for the rich.” Far from a throwaway line on the campaign trail, it was Barack’s central talking point.

 

For him, spiking taxes on the “wealthy” wasn’t just political positioning. It was deeply ideological, part of his core philosophy. Here’s a man who has lamented that the Supreme Court never codified “retribution of wealth” in our legal code, and the same dude who made one Ohio plumber a household name by telling him how advantageous it was to “spread the wealth around.”

 

Barack, the most anti-capitalist President in modern time, was humiliated, both personally and publically, by being forced into backing a two-year extension of the tax cuts he loathes. Obama ate a capitalist sandwich, and you know he hated every bite of it.

[Guest Shiekh]

Make no mistake about it, Obama’s announcement that he’ll keep all tax rates at the current levels is a huge victory for the GOP. Here’s a man who banked his presidential run on rescinding “tax cuts for the rich.” Far from a throwaway line on the campaign trail, it was Barack’s central talking point.

 

For him, spiking taxes on the “wealthy” wasn’t just political positioning. It was deeply ideological, part of his core philosophy. Here’s a man who has lamented that the Supreme Court never codified “retribution of wealth” in our legal code, and the same dude who made one Ohio plumber a household name by telling him how advantageous it was to “spread the wealth around.”

 

Barack, the most anti-capitalist President in modern time, was humiliated, both personally and publically, by being forced into backing a two-year extension of the tax cuts he loathes. Obama ate a capitalist sandwich, and you know he hated every bite of it.

 

"Make no mistake about it, Obama’s announcement that he’ll keep all tax rates at the current levels is a huge victory for the GOP."

 

I couldn't agree more, though a lot of people in the GOP are sore losers. Extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires is grotesque. Job creation? Haven't these tax breaks been active since 2001? Where are all these jobs being created exactly? Saying it's BS would be on the kind side of this scam.

[Guest Pete]

It is sad that the few wealthy control our country. What happened to one nation for all.

[Guest Bill Harold]

The tax benefits will flow most heavily to the highest earners, just as the original cuts did when they were passed in 2001 and 2003.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08impact.html

[Guest LAW]

I hope your group "Law" keeps on playing with this economy. Next quarters numbers are going to be either the same or worse.

 

Your group "Liberal Democrats" want it all of their way. Next year your group will have to actually work with republicans "dreadful thought it must be to you".

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am sure your party will have little solutions to grow the economy. We know the tax cuts did nothing. But, I give you an A+ for marketing scare tactics.

 

Pelosi Statement on President Obama’s Tax Proposal

 

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on President Obama’s tax proposal:

 

“The tax proposal announced by the President clearly presents the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?

 

“The Democratic provisions will create jobs and help 155 million workers through tax cuts for the middle class, helping working families who are struggling and growing the economy.

 

“The Republican demands would provide tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, fail to create jobs and increase the deficit. And to add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America’s richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit.

 

“Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.

 

“We will continue discussions with the President and our Caucus in the days ahead. Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

[Guest human]

Law; My group wants to see the economy grow.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jrZyweU1myAQCZsWJGECwAiLAGRA?docId=CNG.09124ae0672d86c809510993fc566e1b.651

 

No tax deal would risk new recession: Obama aide

 

WASHINGTON — Top White House economic advisor Larry Summers warned Wednesday that if US lawmakers reject a compromise tax deal they risk plunging the US economy back into recession Failure from Congress to vote the tax deal brokered by the President Barack Obama in the next two weeks would "significantly increase the risk" of a "double dip" recession," Summers told reporters.Obama Tuesday urged his Democratic allies to back the compromise brokered with Republican foes and passionately defended the deal that will see tax breaks extended for all including the wealthiest Americans.

 

In return, Republicans agreed to a 13-month extension of jobless benefits set to expire on December 31, and which would have seen millions lose their meagre incomes as unemployment hovers just below 10 percent.

 

But the proposal has met with a frosty reception from some Democratic lawmakers, who would have preferred to see any blame for failing to reach a deal fall on Republican intransigence.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure your party will have little solutions to grow the economy. We know the tax cuts did nothing. But, I give you an A+ for marketing scare tactics.

 

Pelosi Statement on President Obama’s Tax Proposal

 

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on President Obama’s tax proposal:

 

“The tax proposal announced by the President clearly presents the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?

 

“The Democratic provisions will create jobs and help 155 million workers through tax cuts for the middle class, helping working families who are struggling and growing the economy.

 

“The Republican demands would provide tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, fail to create jobs and increase the deficit. And to add insult to injury, the Republican estate tax proposal would help only 39,000 of America’s richest families, while adding about $25 billion more to the deficit.

 

“Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.

 

“We will continue discussions with the President and our Caucus in the days ahead. Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

[Guest LAW]

If that is the real case Human, then why are they so stuck on Estate taxes? Why did that have to be part of the deal? What does that have to do with jobs? What does that have to do with boosting the economy?

 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131913202/Democrats-Fight-To-Keep-Estate-Tax-Out-Of-Deal

 

One line item in President Obama's compromise with Republicans over taxes is a proposal for the estate tax. Republicans have proposed a 35 percent rate for estate taxes rather than the 45 percent rate that Democrats have favored. Republicans also want to exempt more money from the estate tax, raising the number where the tax kicks in from $3.5 million to $5 million. A number of Democrats have indicated they will fight to keep that provision out of final legislation. NPR's Guy Raz talks with Joe Rosenberg of the Tax Policy Center about what the cost to the Treasury might be if the rate ends up where the Republicans want it.

[Guest human]

Employment, but if your group wants to be against people working? Then knock yourselves out.

 

http://www.villagenewsonline.comSPAM3388

 

Death tax could hurt businesses

To the Editor:

This year there is no death tax. For anyone dying on or after Jan. 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent death tax rate on estates over $1 million. What if someone owns a business with 200 employees and it is worth $11 million, which includes buildings, land and construction equipment, such as cranes, tractors, [etc.].

 

Upon the owner’s death, the estate will inherit $1 million tax free, and anything over that is taxed at 55 percent.

 

This means the estate would have to pay well over $5 million cash in estate taxes. In order to raise this money, the assets would have to be sold.

 

Don’t feel sorry for the estate, for it would still receive over $5 million.

The bad part about this is that 200 people would lose their jobs.

James Cox

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If that is the real case Human, then why are they so stuck on Estate taxes? Why did that have to be part of the deal? What does that have to do with jobs? What does that have to do with boosting the economy?

 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131913202/Democrats-Fight-To-Keep-Estate-Tax-Out-Of-Deal

 

One line item in President Obama's compromise with Republicans over taxes is a proposal for the estate tax. Republicans have proposed a 35 percent rate for estate taxes rather than the 45 percent rate that Democrats have favored. Republicans also want to exempt more money from the estate tax, raising the number where the tax kicks in from $3.5 million to $5 million. A number of Democrats have indicated they will fight to keep that provision out of final legislation. NPR's Guy Raz talks with Joe Rosenberg of the Tax Policy Center about what the cost to the Treasury might be if the rate ends up where the Republicans want it.

[Guest LAW]

You might want to better understand estate tax planning than spinning tales of fear. It is our patriotic duty to give to back to our community and facilitate future productivity and create good jobs in the process.

 

 

Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy. Further shifting of this burden away from the super-rich is not the way to go. In a country that prides itself on equality of opportunity, it's becoming anything but that as the gap between the super-rich and the middle class is widening. - Warren Buffett

 

We have a significant ingredient of the Federal revenue stream which people are taking away at the very time that our government is going to need revenue at a level that is unprecedented. We're talking about $200, $300 billion deficits now. And the notion of repealing a tax in the midst of that situation leads inevitably to the proposition that some other tax is going to have to take its place. - Bill Gates, Sr.

 

A number of investigative reporters have gone out to the midwest, they even went to Iowa, and they asked the American Farm Bureau, one of the proponents of repeal, to produce a single example of a farm that had been lost to the estate tax and they could not find one. We should be concerned about the estate tax repeal precisely for the reason we have an estate tax, which is to prevent the wealthy and powerful from writing the rules and changing the rules of our culture and society. - Chuck Collins

 

Throughout my life I’ve seen firsthand how even a little financial assistance could mean a chance for struggling students, dedicated scientists, and families to reach their goals. - George P. Mitchell

 

 

The estate tax helps make family farms more competitive against mega-scale agriculture, because it moderates ever-larger concentrations of wealth and economic clout. Repeal of the estate tax or exempting farms completely will only encourage further concentration of farm ownership, which reduces competition. An unlimited exemption for farm assets could create a giant loophole from the estate tax because wealthy individuals who expect to owe estate tax could use much or all of their wealth to buy farms before they died. Competition is essential to our nation’s economic growth and security.

 

http://www.faireconomy.org

 

http://givingpledge.org

[Guest LAW]

It’s hard for me to understand how my Republican colleagues can fight for a million-dollar-a-year tax breaks for billionaires but deny a $250 check for seniors and disabled veterans, especially at a time of rapidly rising health care costs. - Sen. Bernie Sanders

[Guest Fedup]

House Democrats voted not to bring up tax deal President Obama negotiated with GOP in its current form.

[Guest John A]

It’s hard for me to understand how my Republican colleagues can fight for a million-dollar-a-year tax breaks for billionaires but deny a $250 check for seniors and disabled veterans, especially at a time of rapidly rising health care costs. - Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

Great quote, sums it up nicely, amen. Ball's in your court, human, what say you?

[Guest human]

I'm not in politics anymore John.

 

Your group wants to play politics with the economy, like I said before "knock yourselves out".

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great quote, sums it up nicely, amen. Ball's in your court, human, what say you?

[Guest PBSNewsHour]

House Democrats dug in against President Obama's tax-cut compromise with the GOP, taking a non-binding vote Thursday not to bring the bill before the full House without some significant changes. If no bill is passed, taxes will go up in January when Bush-era tax cuts expire. Jim Lehrer reports.

 

[Guest human]

All of what my group has to do is wait. The left wing agenda ends come January.

 

My group "Republicans" know that we are on probation. The democrats who have re-elected Nancy Pelosi shows that they have not learned there lessons.

 

As for me? I am out of politics, I aint even close to being crazy enough to go back into it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Democrats dug in against President Obama's tax-cut compromise with the GOP, taking a non-binding vote Thursday not to bring the bill before the full House without some significant changes. If no bill is passed, taxes will go up in January when Bush-era tax cuts expire. Jim Lehrer reports.

 

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQ-BRA-Ahc

[Guest Incredulous]

Republicans blocked funding for 9/11 First Responders' medical issues in the name of securing a 4% tax cuts for billionaires, so my question is: "Have They No Shame?"

 

Despicable.

[Guest human]

12 billion taken out of the food stamp program by the democrats.

Keep on playing games. Keep on playing class warfare. Drive businesses out of this country.

 

The government will provide.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans blocked funding for 9/11 First Responders' medical issues in the name of securing a 4% tax cuts for billionaires, so my question is: "Have They No Shame?"

 

Despicable.