Obama Signs Bill To Keep Taxes Lower. Adds $57 Billion In Spending!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Only spending in this bill is the unemployment extension... Political HACKS and the media will say the thing costs $858 billion, when it really only costs $57 billion.

Tax Cuts DO NOT add to a defecit, only SPENDING adds to the defecit.

Either way, taxes aren't going up for 2 years at least....

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

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/17/tax.deal/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Friday signed an $858 billion tax bill into law, saying "this is progress and that's what they (the American people) sent us here to achieve."

"We are here with good news for the American people this holiday season," he said. "By a wide margin, both houses of Congress passed a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people."

Obama was flanked on stage by Democrats and Republicans -- including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who was instrumental in getting the bipartisan legislation passed. Incoming House Speaker John Boehner, however, did not attend the bill signing.

The House of Representatives gave final approval late Thursday night to the deal, negotiated by the White House and top Senate Republicans. The final vote of 277-148 had almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in support.

The package includes a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire December 31. It also would extend unemployment benefits for 13 months, cut the payroll tax by 2 percentage points for a year, restore the estate tax at a lower level and continue a series of other tax breaks.

The bill, which cleared the Senate 81-19 on Wednesday, passed despite objections from both the left and the right. However, the pending expiration of the lower tax rates dating back to 2001 created a deadline that forced both sides to accept provisions they had long opposed.

Obama and congressional Democrats yielded in their opposition to extending the lower tax rates to wealthy Americans and also agreed to a lower estate tax than had been scheduled to take effect. In return, Republicans led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed to extending unemployment benefits along with the payroll tax cut and other tax breaks that conservatives generally oppose as government stimulus measures.

Senate Republicans insisted on all taxpayers getting the same treatment. They used filibusters to block Democratic measures that would have limited the extended tax cuts to individuals earning less than $200,000 a year and families earning less than $250,000 a year, and then those earning less than $1 million a year.

Obama complained that the Republicans were holding the extended tax cuts for the rest of the country "hostage" by insisting that the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers be included rather than approving an extension of the tax cuts for low and middle-income Americans.

McConnell will attend the signing, his office said. Incoming House Speaker John Boehner, however, will not attend. A spokesman for the Ohio Republican declined to comment on why he decided against going.

Democrats expressed mixed feelings before the final vote.

"This is very difficult," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California. "Nobody wants taxes to go up for the middle class. We just don't see why we have to give an extra tax cut to the wealthiest."

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, voted against the bill. He said he had a good reason: concern about the federal debt.

"We all like less taxes, but this came at an immense cost," he said on CNN's "American Morning" on Friday. "We say it's our money. It certainly is. But it's also our debt. And now we have much more of it."

Rep. Marcia Blackburn, R-Tennessee, supported the bill.

"I think it is important we realize this is the American taxpayers' money," she said Friday morning. "Yesterday what we did was to extend the Bush-era tax cuts ... this is letting taxpayers keep their money. This is the money they are not going to send to Washington."

Republican Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, meanwhile, had argued that letting anyone's taxes go up would hinder economic recovery, while a return to higher tax rates for those making more than $250,000 a year would hit small business owners who are important job creators.

A procedural snag earlier Thursday forced House Democratic leaders to pull the bill from consideration over concerns they lacked support on how the debate would proceed under rules they had set. The House then went into indefinite recess as liberal Democrats seeking changes to the bill huddled with party leaders to work out a solution.

Eventually, debate resumed on a new set of rules that would allow the House to vote on a proposed change to the controversial estate tax provision, and then on the full bill itself. The House rejected the amendment changing the estate tax rate, and then easily passed the unchanged bill.

Earlier, Obama strongly praised the Senate vote and urged the House of Representatives to quickly approve the bill.

The Senate vote is "a win for American families, American businesses, and our economic recovery," Obama said in a written statement. "As this bill moves to the House ... I hope that members from both parties can come together in a spirit of common purpose to protect American families and our economy as a whole by passing this essential economic package."

House Democrats, however, repeatedly warned that they would try to change the measure, particularly the estate tax provision. The estate tax was scheduled to return with an exemption on inheritances up to $1 million and tax amounts above that at a rate of 55 percent. Under the tax package, the tax rate was reduced to 35 percent on amounts above a $5 million individual exemption.

Conservatives argued that an estate tax more stringent than the level set by the package would, among other things, make it nearly impossible for many family-owned small businesses to be passed down from one generation to the next. Liberals contended that a lower or nonexistent estate tax would merely benefit the wealthy while doing little to aid the economy.

A number of House Democrats wanted to change the estate tax to levels previously approved in a separate House bill that would exempt inheritances up to $3.5 million and tax amounts above that at a 45 percent rate. Pelosi said the change would bring in an additional $23 billion, and would affect only 6,600 more families than the lower rate and higher exemption in the negotiated tax deal.

However, more than two dozen moderate House Democrats submitted a letter to their House leadership calling for the tax package to be passed unchanged so it could go directly to Obama to be signed into law.

Republicans involved in the negotiations with the White House on the package warned that any changes by the House could derail the entire proposal, causing tax rates to increase in 2011.

With the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, Obama and congressional Democrats faced a fast-approaching deadline to reach a deal. Republicans won control of the House and reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate in the new Congress convening in January, which would give Democrats less leverage to negotiate after the current lame-duck session.

House liberals weren't the only ones objecting to the agreement. A number of conservatives, including likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, were challenging the deal because it doesn't permanently extend the Bush-era tax cuts and would add to the deficit.

[mawilson 2,133]

Either way, taxes aren't going up for 2 years at least....

That's too bad. I was hoping everyone's taxes would go up Jan 1. I was ready to short the heck out of the market

[james&olya 1,121]

I am curious, as this program to 'starve the beast' as some used to say picks up steam and major cuts in government spending cannot be 'papered' over any longer, which of the big three entitlement programs should be the first to go? Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security? There is not enough money in much else other than the military to save the kind of money necessary. I am guessing it will be medicaid. Are all of you ready for that? You do know that medicaid pays for the majority of nursing home care. Grandma may be homeless! And hospitals will be forced to turn people away or face financial ruin themselves. Many are already on the brink now. Is this the country we want to live in?

Edited December 17, 2010 by james&olya

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I am curious, as this program to 'starve the beast' as some used to say picks up steam and major cuts in government spending cannot be 'papered' over any longer, which of the big three entitlement programs should be the first to go? Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security? There is not enough money in much else other than the military to save the kind of money necessary. I am guessing it will be medicaid. Are all of you ready for that? You do know that medicaid pays for the majority of nursing home care. Grandma may be homeless! And hospitals will be forced to turn people away or face financial ruin themselves. Many are already on the brink now. Is this the country we want to live in?

First of Social Security (and even Medicare) was NEVER supposed to be paid for out of the General Fund. There are reasons why there are seperate taxes for those two items and they are supposed to be funded by those two items.

As far as medicaid goes, cut it down, sure. Kick people off who have been on it for far too long. It's not my job to take care of someone else. If you want to, go ahead and donate more of your paycheck!

On top of that, cut military spending and close down some of the bases. Stop paying the private contractors in Iraq and spending on new bases...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tax Cuts DO NOT add to a defecit, only SPENDING adds to the defecit.

That's blatantly false and you'd know it if you were a real Libertarian.

from Ron Paul's forum:

A deficit occurs when you are taking in less money than you spend. If the government reduces taxes, it will collect less money so even if they spend the exact same amount, a tax cut will increase the deficit. The only way a tax cut will not increase the deficit is if you have a coresponding decrease in spending of at least the same size as the tax cut. If the tax cuts are not allowed to expire, then the deficit in the future will be larger than it would be if the tax cuts get extended- I have seen estimates of $700 billion more in debt over a ten year period. The Bush tax cuts were originally supposed to be just temporary to help boost things in the last recession but they keep getting extended- a couple years at a time.

While Ron Paul would like to have taxes be very low or even zero, he agrees that you have to deal with the spending before you reduce taxes otherwise you make deficits worse and that creates other economic problems- just paying the interest on the debt costs more and more money and the more money the government borrows to pay their bills, the less money available for businesses and individuals to borrow.

From his own mouth in 2005:

We will never have a balanced budget until Congress either raises taxes or cuts spending. It's really that simple. I support balancing the budget by cutting the budget, but most people in Washington abhor that option. They abhor making real cuts to the budget because it means cutting the sacred cows of modern American politics. If we cut spending, we cut the power of Congress. Most people do not realize it, but absolutely no major program has been cut one cent in many, many years.

http://www.lewrockwe...ul/paul272.html

It is popular with voters to cut their taxes but tax cuts not accompanied by budget cuts only serve to buy votes and they don't help with the budget shortfalls- in fact, they make them worse. Cutting spending is hard and Congressmen and women do not like to make difficult or potentially unpopular decisions.

If you really want to balance the budget you have to RAISE taxes AND cut spending. It is impossible to do with just one or the other. And you have to include everything- Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Defense along with all the other departments. Based on numbers at Wiki for the 2010 budget, if you cut every penny for every department you would come close to balancing this year's shortfall. (That is figuring no cuts to Social Security or Medicare and no new taxes -either raised or cut).

http://www.ronpaulfo...-to-the-deficit

Edited December 17, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's blatantly false and you'd know it if you were a real Libertarian.

from Ron Paul's forum:

http://www.ronpaulfo...-to-the-deficit

Steven, I know you like to play the class warfare game and feel entitled to whatever I make or whatever your next door neighbor makes, but that doesn't change the fact that if I keep my money and your neighbor keeps his money, the only way the deficit to stay the same or grow even, is for the government to spend money that it does not have.

[mawilson 2,133]

Steven, I know you like to play the class warfare game and feel entitled to whatever I make or whatever your next door neighbor makes, but that doesn't change the fact that if I keep my money and your neighbor keeps his money, the only way the deficit to stay the same or grow even, is for the government to spend money that it does not have.

Or we could just raise taxes on everybody - you, me, Steve and his neighbour - and actually balance the budget.

No class warfare - everyone doing more with less.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Or we could just raise taxes on everybody - you, me, Steve and his neighbour - and actually balance the budget.

No class warfare - everyone doing more with less.

You don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. You need to cut the ####### out of spending first.

Government needs to figure out what it can do without, what it's overspending on, what it's doing inefficiently, THEN and ONLY THEN should it come and ask the people for more money if they've cut all that is reasonable to cut and they still aren't taking in enough revenue.

[mawilson 2,133]

You don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. You need to cut the ####### out of spending first.

Government needs to figure out what it can do without, what it's overspending on, what it's doing inefficiently, THEN and ONLY THEN should it come and ask the people for more money if they've cut all that is reasonable to cut and they still aren't taking in enough revenue.

I agree with you on the second point.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You don't need to raise taxes to balance the budget. You need to cut the ####### out of spending first.

Government needs to figure out what it can do without, what it's overspending on, what it's doing inefficiently, THEN and ONLY THEN should it come and ask the people for more money if they've cut all that is reasonable to cut and they still aren't taking in enough revenue.

Why don't you run for President?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Why don't you run for President?

give me 15 - 20 years.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

give me 15 - 20 years.

It will be too late then. The time is now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, I know you like to play the class warfare game and feel entitled to whatever I make or whatever your next door neighbor makes, but that doesn't change the fact that if I keep my money and your neighbor keeps his money, the only way the deficit to stay the same or grow even, is for the government to spend money that it does not have.

Stay on topic. You claimed that tax cuts don't add the deficit and I posted Ron Paul. If you'd like to argue with Ron Paul, feel free to write him and tell him why you don't think tax cuts add to the deficit.

Why don't you run for President?

...or get appointed to the Supreme Court.

[mawilson 2,133]

...or get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Or head up the Death Panels.

[james&olya 1,121]

First of Social Security (and even Medicare) was NEVER supposed to be paid for out of the General Fund. There are reasons why there are seperate taxes for those two items and they are supposed to be funded by those two items.

As far as medicaid goes, cut it down, sure. Kick people off who have been on it for far too long. It's not my job to take care of someone else. If you want to, go ahead and donate more of your paycheck!

On top of that, cut military spending and close down some of the bases. Stop paying the private contractors in Iraq and spending on new bases...

I suspect you are right that medicaid goes first. It remains to be seen if the mind-set of the GOP will allow cuts in military spending of the size that could make a difference. But I don't agree with you that it will be OK to turn our backs on the people that will be hurt by this. I imagine foreign news media will have a field day covering the people being turned away from hospitals and elderly being turned out of nursing homes with nowhere to go. And ultimately we may have to cut medicare and social security as well if current trends continue. This is not the sort of society I want to live in and leave to the next generation. I am hopeful that most of this will yet be averted as people realize that tax cuts will force these sorts of spending cuts that will hurt real people!