Senate to vote on rescue plan with added tax cut

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Sep 30, 2008.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    WASHINGTON - In a bold bid to revive President Bush's multibillion-dollar financial rescue plan, Senate leaders scheduled a vote for Wednesday night on a version of the bill that adds substantial tax cuts meant to appeal to Republicans when it reaches the House.

    The goal is to net at least 12 more House votes than the rescue proposal received Monday, when lawmakers rocked the political and financial worlds by rejecting it.

    SOURCE.

    Shouldn't the goal be to fix the problem?
     
  2. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was just looking at this, how can the Democrats vote to extend the Bush tax cuts to those greedy executives.

    I'm writing my representative now, no way they should go for this. Obama was going to make those guys pay and I was all for it.
     
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I feel betrayed.

    If they are going to extend those Bush tax cuts then I might as well vote for McCain.

    I can't believe the Dems would sell us out like this. I am outraged...

    PS.. I forgot, my representative is Repub so I wrote Pelosi.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Now is not the time for a tax increase.
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on whose tax you increase. Not increasing tax on the rich won't stimulate the economy one dime. I've never seen a rich person not buy something so they can pay their taxes.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    This is the liberal mantra that holds not substance. It may be a result of ignorance on the facts of tax breaks. There is no reason for folks like you to e jealous of the success of the wealthy. And they should not owe any greater percentage of their income then we do. They already pay the greater amount of taxes in this country. This communist wealth redistribution is unconstitutional.
     
  7. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. They should include MORE tax-cuts.
     
  8. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Well, that's a start. AMT tax is STUPID.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And just exactly how many rich people have you seen?

    You don't think that rich people have to pull money out of investments to pay taxes? You think of it in terms of going to lunch, buying cars, or going on vacations. But rich people buy stocks that support companies and keep them floating. And when they have to sell those stocks to pay taxes (I am not even rich and I have had to do that), it affects the economy. It means they can't buy a piece of XYZ company because they have to pay Uncle Sam.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Tax breaks huh? Ron Paul wanted to abolish the income tax and IRS. Think about that tax break! Too late now.
     
  11. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Watching live now...

    Did you guys see the table of contents I posted regarding the bill? Let me know what section you would like to read...I missed two sections in the previous post.

    Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
    Sec. 2. Purposes.
    Sec. 3. Definitions.
    TITLE I—TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM
    Sec. 101. Purchases of troubled assets.
    Sec. 102. Insurance of troubled assets.
    Sec. 103. Considerations.
    Sec. 104. Financial Stability Oversight Board.
    Sec. 105. Reports.
    Sec. 106. Rights; management; sale of troubled assets; revenues and sale proceeds.
    Sec. 107. Contracting procedures.
    Sec. 108. Conflicts of interest.
    Sec. 109. Foreclosure mitigation efforts.
    Sec. 110. Assistance to homeowners.
    Sec. 111. Executive compensation and corporate governance.
    Sec. 112. Coordination with foreign authorities and central banks.
    Sec. 113. Minimization of long-term costs and maximization of benefits for taxpayers.
    Sec. 114. Market transparency.
    Sec. 115. Graduated authorization to purchase.
    Sec. 116. Oversight and audits.
    Sec. 117. Study and report on margin authority.
    Sec. 118. Funding.
    Sec. 119. Judicial review and related matters.
    Sec. 120. Termination of authority.
    Sec. 121. Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
    Sec. 122. Increase in statutory limit on the public debt.
    Sec. 123. Credit reform.
    Sec. 124. HOPE for Homeowners amendments.
    Sec. 125. Congressional Oversight Panel.
    Sec. 126. FDIC authority.
    Sec. 127. Cooperation with the FBI.
    Sec. 128. Acceleration of effective date.
    Sec. 129. Disclosures on exercise of loan authority.
    Sec. 130. Technical corrections.
    Sec. 131. Exchange Stabilization Fund reimbursement.
    Sec. 132. Authority to suspend mark-to-market accounting.
    Sec. 133. Study on mark-to-market accounting.
    Sec. 134. Recoupment.
    Sec. 135. Preservation of authority.
    Sec. 136. Temporary increase in deposit and share insurance coverage.

    TITLE II—BUDGET-RELATED PROVISIONS
    Sec. 201. Information for congressional support agencies.
    Sec. 202. Reports by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional
    Budget Office.
    Sec. 203. Analysis in President’s Budget.
    Sec. 204. Emergency treatment.

    TITLE III—TAX PROVISIONS
    Sec. 301. Gain or loss from sale or exchange of certain preferred stock.
    Sec. 302. Special rules for tax treatment of executive compensation of employers
    participating in the troubled assets relief program.
    Sec. 303. Extension of exclusion of income from discharge of qualified principal
    residence indebtedness.
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps we should go to a flat tax with no deductions? I'd go for that?

    The only tax break I am upset about is the one that is rewarding companies for sending jobs overseas. I thought that was crossing the line when the government did that and I would like to see that one expire.
     
  13. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the government would lower the corporate tax rate those companies would base themselves here and conduct their business here. However, because companies owe it to their share holders to do everything possible to make maximum profit they move their manufacturing and sometimes headquarters overseas when the government makes them pay too much in corporate taxes. Ireland cut its corporate tax and guess what Irish companies started doing business in Ireland again.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    When we start rewarding companies for doing business here rather than taxing everything in sight we might have more companies here. But in the end Americans have the right and the freedom to choose to do business where ever we want and Democrats do not have the right to tell or simply insist that we do business where ever they want.
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    To paraphrase the late, great Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen: (Inflation, and all that, you know!)

    "A hundred billion here; a hundred billion there, -

    Why, the first thing you know, you're talking about real money!"

    Ed
     
  16. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seriously doubt that. US companies are based here. The reason they employ workers from foreign countries has little to do with their tax rates, it has to do with their cheap labor.

    With all the loopholes Bush has placed in the tax code they are not paying much corporate tax as it stands yet they are still sending jobs overseas. It has to do with paying a worker $1.88/hr with no benefits as opposed to American wages with benefits. Then the profits go to the executives even more so than the stock holders. It's really all about greed.
     
  17. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    This just isn't true. It sounds good in theory but it isn't true in practical application. They don't want to pay the American worker the wage they demand.

    I have no problem with this. Again, my problem is with the government giving tax incentives to send jobs overseas. I realize a company can set up shop where they want, my problem is with the government encouraging or paying them to send our jobs overseas. That is where the Bush administration went too far in my book.

    Listen, if you want to start a company and build your factory in a 3rd world country, you are right, that is your option. It is when the American government gives you tax breaks for setting up your factory in a 3rd world country that I have a problem with.

    I don't know why you guys keep twisting what I'm saying. I think I am being very clear.
     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    The fact that the libs are calling for even more taxes on the wealthy and corporations is clear and convincing evidence. It is absolutely true that many companies do not want to pay not only the wages Americans want but the benefits packages as well. And that is the prerogative of individual businesses.


    But please enlighten me with the exact tax incentives companies get for going over seas?
     
  19. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you provide some evidence with sources that shows where an American Company has been given "a tax break [specifically] for setting up a factory in a 3rd world country"?
     
  20. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    He shoots...HE SCORES!!!.

    Liberals believe the world owes them something, and if they are not wealthy (regardless of who is the reason behind their non-wealth), those that are should pick up the slack for those like them. Bologna (and I'm not wealthy)
     

Share This Page

Loading...