Awesome

[Riot]

Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit

Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.

"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."

In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.

"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.

[Cannon Shell]

^^^

Has nothing to do with the subject of the thread

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

^^^

Has nothing to do with the subject of the thread

True, but the "subject of the thread" was a completely erroneous claim made by the original poster. There is only so much to discuss about something that somebody just made up in their head.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

True, but the "subject of the thread" was a completely erroneous claim made by the original poster. There is only so much to discuss about something that somebody just made up in their head.

It may well be erroneous currently but there is much evidence that won't be the case moving forward. Surely you arent of the belief that these benefits wont be taxed in the near future as doing so is one of the very few topics that has bi-partisan support. Obama doesn't want to broach the subject in the near future for self preserving political reasons but when Baucus and McCain are both on the same side of the fence it is only a matter of time regardless of who is eventually in charge.

And I'm sure that if in one of the countless Sarah Palin threads, I posted something that was critical of Obama or Democrats in general, there would be howls of protest from the usual originator of those threads.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It may well be erroneous currently but there is much evidence that won't be the case moving forward. Surely you arent of the belief that these benefits wont be taxed in the near future as doing so is one of the very few topics that has bi-partisan support. Obama doesn't want to broach the subject in the near future for self preserving political reasons but when Baucus and McCain are both on the same side of the fence it is only a matter of time regardless of who is eventually in charge.

And I'm sure that if in one of the countless Sarah Palin threads, I posted something that was critical of Obama or Democrats in general, there would be howls of protest from the usual originator of those threads.

You could be right of course, but I'm not convinced anything involving the health care bill is "only a matter of time" at this point. I actually think there are huge portions of the program that could change significantly over the next few years. They could be changes I'm happy about, or they could be changes you are happy about, or maybe both or neither.
Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012, do you think they will mount a full-scale repeal campaign or not? If not....why not?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

You could be right of course, but I'm not convinced anything involving the health care bill is "only a matter of time" at this point. I actually think there are huge portions of the program that could change significantly over the next few years. They could be changes I'm happy about, or they could be changes you are happy about, or maybe both or neither.
Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012, do you think they will mount a full-scale repeal campaign or not? If not....why not?

I don't really think you could even venture an accurate guess because it will greatly depend on the shape of the economy and who emerges as the powerbroker on the GOP side among other things.

Repealing it will require a plan to replace it. That will take some time to do and we might wind up in a similar mucked filled mess that the current one went through to get passed. Isn't it really a stretch to think that there wont be any meaningful bi-partisan work done in the near future. If I had to guess I would say that they would try to reshape the current plan. Changing the funding mechanisms (and perhaps including the benefits that we are talking about in this thread-especially if the economy is heating up again), undoing the requirement that everyone must participate, granting tax relief to the businesses, etc.

If the tea party movement gains more strength and grabs a real hold on some of the power in the party (and the polls favor it), I wouldnt rule out an attempt at a full scale repeal but at this point you would think that is a longer bet than simply tweeking it.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by miraja2

True, but the "subject of the thread" was a completely erroneous claim made by the original poster. There is only so much to discuss about something that somebody just made up in their head.

I didnt make it up in my head ...it was sent to me as an email and maybe a bogus one at that but I dont think Cannon is far fetched at all with how he thinks things will go down.

Really, you dont think the government can just get a statement from the employer about what they pay for health insurance? Why does it need to be on the employees W2 form?