Why Do Republicans Want to Raise Taxes?

"... a cut in the rate of any tax -- payroll, income, sales, excise, property, or otherwise -- is always a good thing for liberty and limited government. It may be a bad thing for government revenue, but why should a fiscally conservative, limited-government, budget-cutting Republican have a problem with that?"

Why Do Republicans Want to Raise Taxes?
by Laurence M. Vance, September 6, 2011

True or false: Barack Obama wants to raise taxes and Republicans in Congress want to cut them. The surprising answer is, False. Although it can usually be said that the president never met a tax hike or spending increase he didn't like, such is not the case right now.

One does not have to be a fan of Obama or his motives to recognize a good deal for the American people and applaud him for proposing it. It seems that the president wants to extend the payroll-tax cut that is set to expire at the end of this year.

It hasn't even been a year since Republicans fought for, and obtained, an extension of the Bush tax cuts for two years. Yet now they are opposing the proposed extension of the payroll-tax cut that was part of the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.

There are two types of payroll taxes: Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.

Social Security taxes were instituted in 1937 as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The original rate was 2 percent. Then, as now, half the tax is paid by the employer and half the tax is paid by the employee. By 1960, the rate had tripled. Since 1990, it has been 12.4 percent. Social Security taxes were originally levied only on the first $3,000 of yearly income. That threshold is now up to $106,800. That means that the maximum amount one could conceivably pay in Social Security taxes for one year is $6,621.60, with one's employer paying the same amount.

Payroll-tax deductions for Medicare were instituted in 1966. The original rate was .7 percent, again, divided between employer and employee. Since 1986, the rate has been 2.9 percent. After 1993, the taxable threshold was eliminated. Thus, unlike Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes are levied on every dollar of earnings.

The Bush tax-cut extension that was enacted last year included a reduction in the employee's share of Social Security tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. The employer's share remains the same. A cut in the Medicare tax rate was not included.

A reduction in the Social Security tax rate greatly benefits those who need it most ­ the poor and middle class. But unlike a refundable tax credit, the extra 2 percent of their income that Americans are now allowed to keep in their pocket and out of the hands of the government is not a subsidy or income transfer payment ­ it is their money.

In one of his recent weekend radio addresses, Obama proposed extending the temporary payroll-tax cut: "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend."

Yet Republicans in Congress generally oppose extending the cut in Social Security taxes.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that "all tax relief is not created equal." He maintains that Cantor believes "there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll-tax relief." House budget guru Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) termed the tax-cut extension "sugar-high economics." The office of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (the committee that writes the tax laws), David Camp (R-Mich.), who is also a member of the new congressional "supercommittee," issued a statement saying that tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will increase the deficit.

Over in the Senate, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) objected as well: "We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on."

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also opposes extending the temporary payroll-tax cut. Candidate Mitt Romney said that he "would prefer to see the payroll-tax cut on the employer side."

Why do Republicans want to raise taxes?

Can it be that their reputation as tax cutters is not so deserved? The only Republican in Congress that I am aware of who has called for the complete elimination of the income tax and not replacing it with anything is Ron Paul. And the same goes for the Republican presidential candidates. After all, it was under Republican idol Ronald Reagan that Social Security tax rates increased from 10.16 to 12.12 percent and Medicare tax rates increased from 2.1 to 2.9 percent.

For Republicans to claim that the payroll tax cut extension should be rejected because it is shortsighted or will increase the deficit is ludicrous, considering that only last year they fought for an equally shortsighted and deficit-increasing measure -- the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

But letting the Social Security tax-rate cut expire is not the only way that Republicans are willing to effectively raise taxes. Out of one side of their mouths they are saying that they will not vote to raise taxes, but out of the other side they are talking about closing tax loopholes, ending tax shelters, and reforming tax deductions and credits. Those measures raise taxes as surely as a rate increase, but they allow the Republicans to pose as being for tax and budget cuts.

Regardless of the president's ulterior motives, his other horrible policies, his plans to increase income taxes on the "rich," his nanny-state philosophy of government, his poor understanding of economics, and his belief in the redistribution of wealth, a cut in the rate of any tax -- payroll, income, sales, excise, property, or otherwise -- is always a good thing for liberty and limited government. It may be a bad thing for government revenue, but why should a fiscally conservative, limited-government, budget-cutting Republican have a problem with that?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1109e.asp

Re: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

Just in case you haven't seen it, I post it for the hundreth time....
please read the summaries at the end of each section.
They say your letter is a crock.

Senate intelligence report on Iraq...full and un-abridged version.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

On Sep 6, 8:13 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just in case you might not have seen it, I post it once again:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just off the top of my head, here's a couple:
>
> >http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-urani...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:55 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> .....Just revisionist historians with agenda
> >> ----
> >> no, just historical facts
>
> >>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>
> >> the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and gets American
> >> soldiers needlessly killed
>
> >> U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been primarily
> >> responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without
> >> its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist
> >> Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few
> >> ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil
> >> prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies
> >> bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality
> >> always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is
> >> any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or
> >> any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That
> >> resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the
> >> large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region.
> >> U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil
> >> By Paul D'Amato
> >> 1991
>
> >> On Sep 5, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The problem is with Paul's theory, is that there is no lie......Just
> >> > revisionist historians with agenda,  (*e.g*.:  "Isolationism") like
> >> Paul.
>
> >> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM, plainolamerican
> >> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > > the lies that keep the US military in the middle east never end
>
> >> > > we know who is telling the lies and who they represent
>
> >> > > some don't forget
>
> >> > > On Sep 4, 7:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >> > > > The lie that began the endless war on IraqSeptember 4, 2011
> >> byJeffrey
> >> > > Tucker
> >> > > > Wikileaks confirms everything.
> >> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
>  Iraq_WMD_Declassified[1].pdf
> 176KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

And that yellow cake was there BEFORE any hostilities with either
Bush. It was accounted for to the gram. Gee if they had this just why
were they buying from Nigeria??

And your second "proof" predates BOTH Bush wars.

Neither counts as to "Proof" for anything leading or cited as reasons
for Bush jr. to attack.....

On Sep 6, 8:10 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, here's a couple:
>
> http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-urani...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:55 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .....Just revisionist historians with agenda
> > ----
> > no, just historical facts
>
> >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>
> > the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and gets American
> > soldiers needlessly killed
>
> > U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been primarily
> > responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without
> > its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist
> > Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few
> > ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil
> > prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies
> > bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality
> > always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is
> > any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or
> > any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That
> > resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the
> > large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region.
> > U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil
> > By Paul D'Amato
> > 1991
>
> > On Sep 5, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem is with Paul's theory, is that there is no lie......Just
> > > revisionist historians with agenda,  (*e.g*.:  "Isolationism") like Paul.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > the lies that keep the US military in the middle east never end
>
> > > > we know who is telling the lies and who they represent
>
> > > > some don't forget
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 7:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > The lie that began the endless war on IraqSeptember 4, 2011 byJeffrey
> > > > Tucker
> > > > > Wikileaks confirms everything.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
>  Iraq_WMD_Declassified[1].pdf
> 176KViewDownload
>
>  FunAndGamesInHalabjaIraq....NoThreatsHere.....jpg
> 164KViewDownload
>
>  halabja1.jpg
> 44KViewDownload
>
>  halabja2_.gif
> 95KViewDownload
>
>  SaddamChemicalAttackOn.Halabja.jpg
> 306KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Fwd: نہایت احسان کرنے والا / نعت رسول مقبول

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Imran Junani <imranjunani9@hotmail.com>
Date: 2011/9/6
Subject: نہایت احسان کرنے والا / نعت رسول مقبول
To: Imran GMail <imranjunani@gmail.com>

 

نعت رسول مقبول

حضورِ اقدس، شافعِ محشر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

چہرۀ انور چاند سے بڑھ کر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

 

دندان مبارک موتی موتی، سرمگیں آنکھیں روشن روشن

قاسمِ حکمت  لسانِ اطہر  صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

 

آسِ غریباں،  صبحِ یتامیٰ، مثلِ شجرِ سایہ دار

محسن اعظم، ساقئ کوثر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

 

عالی نسب، مخبرِ صادق، پدرِ فاطمہ، ابوالقاسم  

محبوبِ الٰہی،  داعئ اکبر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

 

دریاۓ سخاوت، بحرِ حکمت، قطرہ قطرہ گوہر گوہر

روشن روشن قلبِ معطر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

 

آقا میرے کملی والے تشنہ لبی دامن سے بجھا دیں

پاس ہوں آپ سے دور میں رہ کر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

 {عمران جونانی}
--

Subscribe your email id to get

Informative Valuable Mails on Daily Basis

by Sending blank emial

subjected "Subscribe Me" To imranjunani@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: 10 years, two wars, over a million dead....

10 years, two wars, over a million dead....
---
and the US interventionist policy is still a complete failure and
still getting our soldiers killed.

When will this insanity stop?

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its
ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to
reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to
accomplish these objectives. Compared with other U.S. conservatives,
neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere
less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of
minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the
welfare state. According to Norman Podhoretz,
" "the neo-conservatives dissociated themselves from the wholesale
opposition to the welfare state which had marked American conservatism
since the days of the New Deal" and . . . while neoconservatives
supported "setting certain limits" to the welfare state, those limits
did not involve "issues of principle, such as the legitimate size and
role of the central government in the American constitutional order"
but were to be "determined by practical considerations."[61] "

Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally
justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the
extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.
Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists[citation
needed], have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to
instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of
government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of
economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in
authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently,
neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the
world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations of
the Middle East, communist China and North Korea, and Iran.

In July 2008 Joe Klein wrote in TIME magazine that today's
neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in
cultivating friends. He questioned the sincerity of neoconservative
interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying, "Neoconservatism
in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked
in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy."[62]

In February 2009 Andrew Sullivan wrote he no longer took
neoconservatism seriously because its basic tenet was defense of
Israel:[63]

The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism,
in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements
in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country
who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been
forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt
exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been
slowly forced into... But America is not Israel. And once that
distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.

Neoconservatives respond to charges of merely rationalizing support
for Israel by noting that their "position on the Middle East conflict
was exactly congruous with the neoconservative position on conflicts
everywhere else in the world, including places where neither Jews nor
Israeli interests could be found.

On Sep 3, 9:33 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and the US is still reeling from 9/11.
>
> Neither of the governments of the two countries the US has attacked
> has been proven to support the 9/11 attackers.
>
> The countries whose banks and militaries did send training and the
> money to AQ and others still remain untouched and actually guarded.
>
> The poppy fields that are the one consistent source of finance for
> terrorist organisations remain untouched and protected by US executive
> mandate.
>
> The attacks have succeeded ............ the US is broke.... it is the
> Soviet years in Afghanistan in reverse with the US wall falling this
> time. GET A CLUE !!!!!!!!
>
> When will the US learn to think beyond the length of its ever
> shortening penis?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.