The House voted to extended some of the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and middle class Americans. The bill passed 234-188, with three Republicans voting in favor, and 20 Democrats voting against.
Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner called this very same vote on middle class tax cuts "chicken crap" earlier today. His words.
The White House and members of the Senate continue to haggle over a compromise. So this initiative is still very much TBD. Republicans generally want these cuts extended across the board. The White House and Democrats want them extended just for those making less than $250,000 a year.
How should Congress handle tax reform? Tell us in the comment section below.
Leave a Comment:
I think I have a way forward for Harry Reid & the Senate Dem’s. They should do the opposite of what Nancy Pelosi did; they should call a vote on extending the tax cuts to just the people earning over $250,000/ yr.. The Dems would vote that down and then proceed on a separate vote for the other 98% of us. This would satisfy Mitch McConnell’s ultimatum while achieving Democratic goals. Of course the repubs would squawk/and or filibuster the initial vote. Either way, they would be exposed.
excellent idea...force them to make their ridiculous argument and then make them pay for it
The tax cuts for the wealthy should be only temporary and phased out over 2 or 3 years. Preferably the latter since a 2 year limit takes us to the next presidential election and tax cuts will become a major campaign issue for Republicans. The cuts should not be permanent because the next Republican president will repeat the cycle with tax cuts resulting in deficits that will force cuts in domestic spending. We need to say no to permanent tax cuts.
this posting on a purportedly "left-leaning" site parrots propaganda from the right that the tax cuts will only go to people making less than $250,000 a year. The tax break goes to everyone's income up to 250,000, it doesn't leave any of our hapless millionaire or billionaire countrymen out. In fact they will not only get a tax break it will be larger than anyone else making less than 250K/year. It just goes to show that media elites, even those associated with a show claiming to be left or progressive, can't help themselves in manipulating the framework of this issue.
So, will the Dems use reconciliation to vote on these cuts or will they wimp out again?
The Democrats should use Reconciliation to pass middle-class tax cut in the Senate!!!
Just exactly as President Obama suggested: Tax cuts for those making $250K or less. Those who make above $250K should have their taxes raised at least to the same percentage the rest of us have to pay. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
I agree with you. What is so difficult to understand about this simple concept? The progressive and liberal media have already started playing the "Doubtful Thomas" game, but then again, they played the same game throughout the health care debate.
Two clarifications - first the proposal is to give tax cuts to everybody, regardless of their total income, but only to apply that cut to your salary up to the first $250k. So if you make $500k, you will get a tax cut on the first $250k, but not the second $250k.
Second - those who make over $250k, according to the general income tax rate, pay more in income taxes than people making less than $250k. However, they can reduce their taxable income through deductions and generally pay less in gas and sales taxes as a percentage of their total income (after all, one person can only drive so far and buy so much in a given year).
Am I just repeating something you already knew and you're suggesting that we adjust the >$250k income tax rates to compensate for those other factors? Or were you led to believe that people who make $250k have a lower income tax rate than people who make less?
I don't mean to imply any condescension - I'm honestly asking for clarification. Taxes are insanely complicated and require a lot of specificity that isn't really all that suited to blog comments.
As for my opinion - I'm definitely not in the $250k+ bracket, but I'm staying afloat. I don't think I need a tax cut. I'll get along just fine, I don't need a tax break. I would love to see them drop the $250k cut-off down to $100k as long as a portion of that money is ear-marked for unemployment benefit extensions - but luckily for the Dems' PR people, I don't get to make that call. :P
Thank goodness (God) for MSNBC that Stalin is dead or another anchor would be suspended for contributions.
Those of you against lwer tax rates should just write a check for what you should owe under the regime. Why wouldn't that make you happy?
Hey Lawrence...watching you make a fool of yourself with Rep King right now. Do you really believe half the bull$h!t coming out your mouth? You are a closet homo...come out already! Quit twisting words and creating lies you liberal hack. Get a real job, then you can say you are looking out for me. I can do your job better.
Lawrence O'Donnell is married to Kathryn Harrold - and you call him a closet homo? HA! Most of us left Name-Calling back in Junior High/Middle School - Grow Up! It's fine, even constructive, to criticize someone's opinion, and you're always free to switch channels to Fox, or whatever you like - But if you want to be heard as an HONEST Critic, please use FACTS, not childish name-calling.
I respect honest differences in opinion, I often disagree with Mr. O'Donnell, but it's HIS Show, and HIS Opinion, whether you agree or not. He is one of the few commentators I've heard who actually Apologized when one of his commentaries was inadvertently hurtful, and did so at the TOP of his show, Loudly and Clearly, rather than a just a quiet phone and an asterisk on his website - THAT qualifies him for MY respect, and that of many others! I watch his show for exactly what it offers and delivers - His Opinion, whether I agree or not. You and I, and every other viewer, are always free to change channels.
Larry made a bumbling fool of himself. Completely outclassed and intellectualy inferior on all accounts. I couldn't help but laugh. Looked like a held back 5th grader trying to outsmart a 12th grade honor student.
you are a deranged, ignorant bigot
I find it interesting that you dont mind gay people when they are closeted, but have no shame when calling someone a hateful and bigoted name
go to church...grow a conscience
I am distressed that Obama's attempt to compromise with the Republican stance that all of the Bush tax cuts should continue is being presented as a cop-out. I believe a compromise could pass if the the tax cuts were extended to those making $400,000 or less, or even $500,000 or less. I wonder what impact that would have on the deficit? You can increase that $250,000 number but still gain a lot of deficit reduction from the very wealthy who make more than $500,000 per year. Obama and the Democrats need to look like they are compromising. I think this suggestion would accomplish that.
They're reign is almost over, can't you feel it?
Harry Reid did it - Two votes on Saturday; First Vote, Tax Cuts for those earning $250,000 and Under, Second Vote, Tax Cuts for those earning $250,001 and Over!
Would have been better, and might have changed the outcome of November's Elections, if the SAME Two Votes had been called in, say, September, but Better Late than Never! ....the Republicans can take their own shots in January!
Mr. O'Donnell,
I heard someone on your program tonight say that the taxes from people earning over $250,000 would be $400 billion? $600 billion? Is that per year or over some other time frame? Anyway, I can't remember what the amount was. But, can your people figure out what that number would be if the income level were raised to $400,000? $500,000? Please - people need information and facts in order to make informed decisions. Hopefully, you can do that. Thanks!
Reply to Cory Ethridge:
They are talking #400 billion dollars over a period of ten years.
A good question. They should say it everytime.
Remember when all of the trade agreements were being made with the low monetary value countries? The words were that these agreements will create lots of jobs and these countries will buy our goods, but there was some words left out by the people pushing these trade agreements.
PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I just heard it said that there were human beings on this planet for whom the decision of whether or not to put a loved one on life support hinged on the outcome of estate tax legislation. If that is true, we have WAAAYYY bigger problems than we thought. I am disgusted.
Reply to Mike-2749862
Would not doubt this taking place in the case where billions of dollars are involved.
Hi Lawrence,
Our increasing National Debt did not cause the 2007 deep recession, but as the debt increases it makes counter acting the recession and the getting back our jobs harder, since it is going to take a long period and the governments spending money when the private sectors will not reinvest here without subsidies and enticements.
If ther is not any Government tax payer money, there will not be any new manufacturing jobs.
The backers of the global economy free trade are not helping the change, the Republicans and some of the lobbied Democrats are not helping, when there is a continuing $50.0 billion dollar trade deficit each month, this does not help and there are private companies continuing to invest in the lower monetary value countries to have their goods manufactured.
It will depend how the American consumers spend their money during the next two years as to how many jobs are created here in the USA.
why can`t dems pass this same bill with reconcilation in sennitt. thats the way republicans past it originly
To use reconciliation, the House must pass a bill and the Senate must also pass a bill. Reconciliation is the process by which the differences in the two bills are reconciled.
It is theoretically possible for the Dems to get the bill they want through reconciliation. They would have to pass an odious bill in the Senate that makes all the tax cuts permanent then "reconcile" the two bills so that they're both the same as the House version. Then the reconciled bill would be brought back to the House and the Senate for a vote which would require a simple majority.
But even though I understand the general process, I don't know if there's any legal or procedural reason they couldn't reconcile a difference that big, or if the Dems in the Senate would even get a full majority (because, even though the end is good, the means are considered somewhat dishonest by several Dems in the Senate).
Lawrence what I want to know is: why doesn't Obama use signing statements? Just let the Reps and the Dems vote any way thet want and when the bill/law comes to the POTUS' desk for final signature, use the signing statement to make it say whatever he wants. You know, just like little Bush did.
Seriously, the signing statement is supposed to be to ensure the constitutionality of a law and Obama should preside over the govt he was elected to lead, rather than tremble simply because one party is inflexible.
Rather than making it a class war fare issue, why can't Dems talk about how added 700 billion dollars to the federal deficit from tax cuts for the rich would evetually harm the middle class unfarily in the form of service cuts, inflation, higher mortgage interest that would average thousands of dollars per family, which is far more than then the benefits from middle class tax cuts they receive?
Mr. O'Donnell,
I have some questions I'd like you to answer yourself and ask any of your Republican guests.
"Under what conditions would Republicans be willing to raise taxes?"
"What level must our national debt reach before Republicans are willing to increase taxes?"
Finally, please explain the distinction between “business income’’ and "small-business profits." My understanding is that "business income," which includes income from hedge fund investments, royalties, real estate partnerships and estate and trust fund income, are all under the umbrella of what Republicans frequently call "small-businesses." If that is correct why don't we bifurcate the two? Can't we offer tax breaks to legitimate small businesses but return to the Clinton tax levels on purely investment derived income? Somehow, taxing trust fund income doesn't strike me as a threat to job growth.....I don't know; please clarify.
Jared N Hess
Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (Lesotho)
When terms like, "weak", "scared", "give away", "the Republicans are walking the president like a dog" and "cave in" are used by liberals and progressives, based on speculative information from the so-called "Washington insiders", all it does is strengthen the Republican's argument that not even his own base thinks he has what it takes to win. Perhaps in the past when the fight was simply between a Republican president and a Democratic president, that kind of rhetoric worked. However, the landscape's changed and the Obama administration knows the difference between governing and sporting events. Our media sees them as one in the same. The few progressive/liberal channels need to get the Democrat's message out instead of complaining and agreeing with the Right that our message isn't clear. Instead of reporting about all the horrible things Republicans said about Democrats, why don't they start reporting about all the ridiculous things Republicans say and do, followed up by the truth. Something like what Keith, Rachel, Lawrence, Chris and Ed do on their shows. Ed screams a lot, but he does follow up.
Before the Bush Tax Cuts, the tax rate for the rich was at 39%. The Bush Tax cuts dropped it down to 36%, 3 percentage points. As they are now due to expire per written, in 10 years, unless there is a way to pay for them, otherwise the MUST expire. That's it. What the Republicans want President Obama to borrow $700 billion to extend them. The only reason this is an issue is because Obama wants to extend the tax rates for the folks making under $250,000 and only Congress can make new law. My take on this is President Obama is going to let it lapse, on everybody, and bring it back in January. The president will not raise taxes on families making under $250,000 per year. That's non-negotiable. The tax cut ceiling may be raised to $1 million, thus, allowing tax cuts for those making under that amount. However, multi-millionaires and billionaires will have their taxes increase by 3 percentage points, next year. The good news, it will be retro from December 2010. gain next year and only for folks making under $250,000. In the meantime, the Dems are working on the unemployment benefits extension bill and by the middle of next week, the House will bring it to the floor, pass it and by the week of Christmas, if the Republicans plan to be home for the holidays, the Senate has a choice. Pass it or starting practicing the words to "Silent Night".
The President is no fool. He has said over and over again where he stands. Only progressives think they know better how he thinks than he does. Amazing. Stop calling the President weak and call out those 20 Dems that vote with the Republicans. They are the weak ones.
I love "The Last Word." Come on MSNBC, I work at night and want to watch the entire show on the computer.
Here's my line up: Countdown, TRMS, then The Last Word. Come on, it's 2010!!.
Thanks!
After the magnificent performance of the house dems last night-breaking news from "The Last Word"-the white house statement:
"The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension. But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won't pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward"
WTF, ruined my night!
"Yes, we cave!"
I don't know what to think at this point. I wish the Democrats had publicized all the bills the Republican, or should I say, the Party of "No", said no to before the November election. Only that they, the Democratic Congress should have pushed this bill through before November to show the country what two-faced, double-talkers Boehner and his cohorts really are. They pretend to meet with the President, of course on their terms, and then slap the middle-class in the face by saying they will not entertain ANYTHING until the tax cuts are renewed for their billionaire friends. Sorry, I can't imagine that the Tea Party isn't behind this with Karl Rove stroking his ugly chin in agreement. That is real mature, isn't it? That sounds like talk from a leader that wants to see all sides, doesn't it? Not to me it doesn't. That sounds like a spoiled baby that didn't win the last time and now that he is in power is going to stamp his feet and all things have to go his way or no way. Grow up John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. This is not the playground where you are pulling punches. You are playing with the livelihood of this country. But, what am I saying, you already did that and that is how we got into this mess in the first place but it took you 8 years to screw it up.
I do agree that the tax cuts should increase to perhaps $500,000 because $250,000 12 years ago is not the same now. However, I cannot take advantage of the tax cuts that millionaires can write-off just for being rich. So their whining really has no place in this discussion.
President Obama needs to take a stand and forget reaching out to the Republican Party. He tried for 2 years and they spat in his face. Get it together, and be the man, the President, the Leader we voted in. Talk to V.P. Biden, he probably has horror stories to share on how back-stabbing the new Republican Party has become. "Yes, you can."