The Pueblo Chieftain’s Peter Roper reported yesterday on this weekend’s town hall with Rep. Scott Tipton–who seems to have trouble telling voters anything they don’t want to hear.
The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 and unwanted federal regulations are crippling the U.S. economy – according to U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton – and one needed remedy is to make permanent the decade-old package of tax cuts that Congress approved during President George W. Bush’s administration…Currently, Senate Democrats have approved a plan to extend those tax cuts except for people who earn more than $200,000 a year, or $250,000 as a couple. House Republicans have refused that and will be approving a full extension for all income categories next week. It’s a legislative deadlock that both sides apparently believe will appeal to their respective supporters.
Letting the Bush tax rates expire this year will amount to “the highest tax increase” in the nation’s history, according to Tipton.
What is different this year is that Tipton now supports features of the Democratic health care legislation, but has voted to repeal it several times. Specifically, he supports the new ban that blocks insurance companies from rejecting a person for coverage because of prior conditions.
He also supports the feature that lets parents keep adult children on their insurance until age 26.
But Republicans can do better in improving health care, he told the Pueblo audience. And they will repeal the new law’s central requirement that everyone be required to purchase some kind of insurance.
Once again, you’ve got to marvel at the contradictions that Tipton manages to string together here without blinking. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would cause “the highest tax increase” in history, even though he and his House colleagues are happy to risk just that to preserve the tax cuts for income over $250,000 per year. Tipton wants to keep the popular parts of Obamacare, like the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions and insure children through age 26, but wants to repeal the individual mandate that would allow the system to function.
And remember, he’s going to do this with “no cuts, no privatization” of Medicare (never mind that Ryan budget), while managing to “cut the government in half” at the same time. “Unrealistic” doesn’t quite do Tipton’s campaign promises justice. More like “incoherent.”
Now, if Tipton promised unicorns and rainbows for all, we’d have to consider it.
Everyone has their price, folks.
The Bush tax cuts for his 1%er’s was supposed to do a bangup job for improving the economy. And, we can view those results even today. What would be different from all the jobs the 1%er’s are creating today and after they have to pay their accountants more to avoid more taxes when the Bush the VI tax cuts for the uber rich expire?
So, conversely Pam, increasing the 1% ers is going to help the economy? No, I think the reason Barack Hussein Obama supported extending the Bush Tax Cuts is precisely how much damage it would do to the economy if he allowed them to expire.
He knew that if the economy were any worse off, right before his re-election bid, then he could kiss a second term goodbye. This is why he was FOR extending the Bush tax cuts but now he is against them.
http://www.shopzilla.com/mkt.x…
DIY here http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Pray tell, how much damage (you make the claim) letting the Bush tax cuts expire would do? Since we had the worst economic collapse in 80 years AFTER his tax cuts went into place.
It would be a wonderful exercise for you to do a little research and empirically show us readers the tax levels in the United States since the Great Depression, and correlate them to GDP or economic health in the alternative.
Otherwise? You’re just blowing smoke.
Tax cuts didn’t cause the recessions.
Or else we’d have seen the boomingest recovery EVER after the enormous tax cuts that made up about one third of the stimulus.
Funny how those who claim the stimulus failed are only pinning the blame on the spending and not on the tax breaks. If tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy then, by your logic, shouldn’t we finally admit that they’re a failed economic policy?
since I highly suspect you’re a Latin scholar.
The tax cuts occurred DURING the Bush administration, as did the catostrophic depression/recession. They are linked, as Bush is to the depression, and as are Republican economics. Own it.
Which is the point I take from our knight’s comment. That you ignore. Alas!
But nice touch! With the latin and all!
Overall, decent effort. Solid ‘C’ student material there, and a definite improvement.
Here’s a few for tonight’s assignment.
Petitio principii
Ignoratio elenchi
Alas, fools will always fail recognizing their own their foibles. They are, after all, fools.
That’s my alliteration for the day.
Excuse me while I look up my homework assignment:-)
but its always good to brush up.
“certo scio, occisam saepe sapere plus multo suem.”
Good One, Duke:-)
take credit for it, Robin, but I found it in a book. It is quoted from a piece called, “Plautus”. Spoken by Miles Gloriosus when referring to a Roman circus clown named Arapahoium GOPhus Doofus, who, incidentally was single handedly responsible for the downfall of a Roman Senator who wanted to be Emperor…his name?…Willardium Mittus Romnae.
What a coincidence, huh?
Please explain your rationale. We normally don’t call people by their entire names including middle names.
Junk town is a troll following AP around. Many refer to GJ as Grand Junktown or Grand Junkyard, for the way they used to treat their riverbanks. Didn’t show up until AP did, IIRC.
Whenever “we” increased taxes on the very wealthy, there were more jobs and better living.
A strong middle class comes with a good education, opportunity, governments that protect the lesser abled. All that takes money.
Speaking broadly, the New Deal was paid for by the highly progressive taxes put in place by FDR and the Congress.
How did that Clinton tax increase hinder the economy, again?
All this talk about rising tax rates on the rich hurting the economy is bunk, which fact is borne out by statistical analysis.
But more directly, it is difficult for any tax rate hike to hurt a business, as taxes are only calculated on PROFITS. You know – money that you still have in your pocket after all the business expenses are paid…
Every year in December we have our CEO telling us to buy pretty much anything we can use to reduce the profit that is then taxed.
Love the business acumen!
Mostly it’s upgrade computers and get people additional monitors.
Gotta lay this semantic blunder at the feet of the Obama camp.
It should be, “$250,000 of taxable income. Folks, that means you might make $350,000 or $500,000 before you hit the additional tax. It all depends on your deductions.”
And it’s the high rollers that have lots of deductions, lots of accountants (even if they don’t get the correct state of residence, snark.)
taxable income over 250K.
Everything up to that is taxed at the appropriate lower marginal rate.
Make $251K and only $1,000 is taxed at 37% (or whatever)
Thanks for pointing out that the tax increase is only on taxable income which is calculated after lots of deductions (e.g., pension contributions, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state income and property taxes, personal exemptions, etc.).
You are correct that it would take at least $350,000 of gross income before a couple would have to pay any additional tax.