Boehner decides tax cuts for the rich are more important than the debt

[dalegg 143]

This is one Republican that will vote for Obama in 2012 if the Republicans can't agree to tax the rich. Surely there is a spending problem, however we need compromise on both sides and this Republican sees the Republicans are stubborn rich favoring idiots so what do Republicans need to worry about? How many other Republicans and Independents are thinking as I am? How many other Republicans and Independents feel Obama is bending far more than Republicans.

In the past, if I disagreed with Republicans I simply sit out an election, but this time I will vote my disgust by voting for Obama. It doesn't even matter that I do not live in a swing State, because as I said, how many others think the Republicans are siding with the rich at the expense of our debt and deficit?

Perception is what the Republicans need to worry about.

I think you are going to end up being disappointed there. The Republican congressmen actually signed a pledge to not raise taxes. Many of them were elected almost solely because they promised their base they wouldn't raise taxes- on anyone. To go against that would cost many of them their jobs. As it is, the Tea Party has little patience with Republican candidates who cross the line and are just about ready to tear the party apart, so politically they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not sticking to their line. I am also a Republican and I do agree that this seems kind of crazy and I really wish it wasn't the case, but at the same time I believe that if you vote for someone under a certain promise they have an obligation to fulfill that promise. Personally, I have no problem with raising the progressive tax rate of post million dollar wages back to 39% where it was 11 years ago. That's all they have to do too and I believe they could get the President to throw in a lap dance on top.

As for who I vote for, I live in California, so it really doesn't matter. Obama will win my state with or without my vote.

[DEDixon 39]

"As for who I vote for, I live in California, so it really doesn't matter. Obama will win my state with or without my vote."

The same applies to me and that is why I said that the Republicans have to be concerned about Republicans and Independents in other states feeling as I do about them.

I vote from home so voting for Obama will cost me very little time and absolutely no gas money.

I sent Boehner my sentiments in 2 emails.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As a fellow Californian, I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain, so I cast my meaningless safe Democratic state vote for Obama last election. I get my licks in at primary time, as a registered Democrat. But, unlike the rest of the jackasses, living and dead, I only vote once in one precinct only and I send in my own absentee ballot, thank you. I don't want to take bus rides with DFH's and homeless people just to vote in multiple jurisdictions.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The problem is "spending"... not "income".

yup

[dalegg 143]

The same applies to me and that is why I said that the Republicans have to be concerned about Republicans and Independents in other states feeling as I do about them.

I vote from home so voting for Obama will cost me very little time and absolutely no gas money.

I sent Boehner my sentiments in 2 emails.

Maybe, but I think people prefer to blame the President when things are going bad. By the way, I can't say for sure I will vote Republican. It really matters who the candidate is, but I most definitely will not vote for Obama.

Obama had a golden opportunity to raise the tax rate on the wealthy and he squandered it. A year ago he had a majority House and a filibuster-proof senate. As far as I know, every Democrat was, and is, for raising the taxes on at least the millionaires so it seems to me they could have taken 1 week out of their busy schedule to quickly write up a tax bill for the wealthy if they really wanted to. They did not need to wait for the Bush tax cuts to end. Given how much the country was divided over the healthcare debate, it had to have been obvious to the President that he was not going to have the same congress in 2011 that he had in 2010 and that if he wanted to tax the wealthy without debatge, the time was then. So, why didn't he? The only reason I can come up with is that he knew it would look bad for just Democrats to raise taxes during a recession, knowing that the deficit would still be very high afterwards, and by waiting for Republicans to have a voice in the matter he could either make them share in the blame or he could accuse them of not compromising and not being sincere about debt reduction. So, as much as I actually wish the Republicans could compromise, I still completely blame the President.

Edited July 12, 2011 by dalegg

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

Reagan's record looks more like a modern Republican's than like a new Democrat's, but by today's standards, he'd still basically be a RINO. The giant tax cut he signed at the outset of his presidency assured that, on net, over eight years, he actually reduced revenue. Spending declined as well, but, according to data compiled by The American Presidency Project, not enough to make up for the revenue loss.

But, as Bartlett details here, he also raised taxes -- over and over and over again.

[Zero Sum 305]

This is one Republican that will vote for Obama in 2012 if the Republicans can't agree to tax the rich. Surely there is a spending problem, however we need compromise on both sides and this Republican sees the Republicans are stubborn rich favoring idiots so what do Republicans need to worry about? How many other Republicans and Independents are thinking as I am? How many other Republicans and Independents feel Obama is bending far more than Republicans.

In the past, if I disagreed with Republicans I simply sit out an election, but this time I will vote my disgust by voting for Obama. It doesn't even matter that I do not live in a swing State, because as I said, how many others think the Republicans are siding with the rich at the expense of our debt and deficit?

Perception is what the Republicans need to worry about.

Interesting post. It definitely shows the ill-will and silliness with the Obstructionism can only convince/blind so many people.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is one Republican that will vote for Obama in 2012 if the Republicans can't agree to tax the rich.

The rich are already paying most of the tax burden in this country. The top 10% pay more than 50% of the taxes.

The bottom 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all - only Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Just how much is a "fair share"?

[Zero Sum 305]

The rich are already paying most of the tax burden in this country. The top 10% pay more than 50% of the taxes.

The bottom 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all - only Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Just how much is a "fair share"?

Are the rich burdened by their 'fair share' of taxes as much as the middle class? Of course they are. One less zero in those capital earnings would be catastrophic to their morale.

[slim 1,533]

Are the rich burdened by their 'fair share' of taxes as much as the middle class? Of course they are. One less zero in those capital earnings would be catastrophic to their morale.

Who cares if they're burdened? It's their money!

[mawilson 2,133]

Are the rich burdened by their 'fair share' of taxes as much as the middle class? Of course they are. One less zero in those capital earnings would be catastrophic to their morale.

There's nothing "fair" about their share of taxes.

Fair is when everyone pays more or less the same rate.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Are the rich burdened by their 'fair share' of taxes as much as the middle class? Of course they are. One less zero in those capital earnings would be catastrophic to their morale.

So, it is all about equitable wealth distribution, eh comrade? Because at a certain point, we are no longer talking about fee for service, we are talking about the well off taking care of the less well off as administered by a third party, rather than relying on their own philanthropic endeavors.

[Zero Sum 305]

Who cares if they're burdened? It's their money!

We're talking about taxes here, crusader.

I know how much you despise them, even though your paying more will ensure your rich overseers will not have to drop more crumbs from their dividends thanks to your effort.

There's nothing "fair" about their share of taxes.

Fair is when everyone pays more or less the same rate.

I like that. Lets do that.

So, it is all about equitable wealth distribution, eh comrade? Because at a certain point, we are no longer talking about fee for service, we are talking about the well off taking care of the less well off as administered by a third party, rather than relying on their own philanthropic endeavors.

Ah... pull out the communism propaganda eh, paranoid?

I was fairly clear. The rich are not burdened in comparison to those like you and me. There's something inherently odd about that if we want to talk about fairness.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I like that. Lets do that.

You may not like it, if you knew what that really means.

[Zero Sum 305]

You may not like it, if you knew what that really means.

Sarcasm.