Senate Passes Middle Class Tax Cuts

The measure heads to the U.S. House where a political showdown is looming.

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday narrowly approved a plan to extend the Bush-era middle class tax cuts to all households earning less than $250,000, with Connecticut Independent Joseph I. Lieberman joining Republicans to vote against the plan and Democrat Richard Blumenthal voting with the Democrats.

The measure passed the Senate on a vote of 51-48 and sets the stage for a political showdown next week in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is also expected to become a central issue in the presidential race.

Democrats want to limit the tax cuts, first approved during the presidency of George W. Bush, only to those making less than $250,000. Taxpayers making more than that are within the top 2 percent of income earnings in the country.

Republicans, however, argue the tax cuts should be extended to all Americans.

Eric Larson July 26, 2012 at 07:14 PM
Rosemary, please define fair in the tax argument. The reality is we have a progressive tax structure based on a person's ability to pay. Saved GM a laugh. O'Bama totally ignored the bankruptcy laws in favor of the unions. Consequently, GM stock is at one of its lowest points ever. The national debt has tripled under this president. He cannot run on his record of ecomonic failure. Until the federal government, the congress and the president bring forth meaningful budget cuts and curb their insane spending, there should be no discussion of raising taxes. Both parties are to blame for this mess. If we don't, we will be the next Greece.
Rosemary C. July 26, 2012 at 07:31 PM
One could only imagine Eric, what the unemployment rate would be if Romney had his way and let the auto makers go under. Obama made the right decision. BTW, a quarter of those that pay no income tax are senior citizens. Should we go after them too? Or just the "poor"?
Big Family July 26, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Rosemary, Are you or anybody you know better off then you were 3 1/2 years ago? No politics just a question that you need to ask yourself.
Rosemary C. July 26, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Truthfully, we were all better off under Clinton than we have been since then. Also it is a different world now. I honestly don't think the unemployment levels will ever be what they were then. Technological advances, outsourcing to third world counties, the global economy, people living longer, the party of no, etc. Anyone who thinks they have the magic answer is naive.
DAY July 26, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Okay - I see you're full of envy and jealousy. I, too, do not earn $250k, but do not suffer from the same complex. I understand the dynamic that leads people to risk their lives every day to reach our shores; the promise that we all have the opportunity to capitalize on our ideas and talents, with the sky the limit. Neither you nor I are "successful," millionaires or CEOs. But if we were, we wouldn't keep our money under a mattress. We'd invest our dollars directly in new businesses; Or deposit them in banks, which would then lend out the money to other people who want to capitalize on their ideas and dreams by opening new businesses, thereby creating more jobs and more wealth for themselves as well as the investors or banks - and the cycle continues from there. When government raises taxes, it suppresses this activity. By the way, even if you took 100% of the income of people making over $380,000, you still wouldn't have enough tax revenue to pay for the federal budget.
Big Family July 26, 2012 at 07:55 PM
And BTW Rosemary, if you ment that Obama ended the blackout on casualties by making it a political photo op with our Heroes, you're right he did that.
Rosemary C. July 26, 2012 at 07:55 PM
Since you are attempting with little success to belittle Obama's accomplishments, please tell me what W. accomplished? Started two wars? No child left behind? Expanded medicaide? He spent money like a drunken sailor. Katrina. (Helluva a job Brownie!). Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzo. All failures that the right is running away from.
Rosemary C. July 26, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Who would have thought there are so many right wing nuts in CT. You would think we were in the deep south. Must he hard for you guys to live in such a blue state.
Newtown resident July 26, 2012 at 08:05 PM
This election is not about President Bush or Clinton. It is about out of control spending, a senate that has failed to pass a budget, and a national debt that is threatening our country. You can not tax any class of people enough to counter the spending. Government is NOT the answer. It needs to back off of many entitlements, and stop thinking it is the answer to everything. I would like to keep more of the money that I work hard to earn- that way I will be in a position to help those who are hurting. Is the Gov't helping or enabling?
Big Family July 26, 2012 at 08:08 PM
So the answer is no. It would be naive to continue on this road.(actually worse then naive)
Newtown resident July 26, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Rosemary, why do feel that you need to resort to name calling? Everyone has been debating your points in a respectful manner!
Big Family July 26, 2012 at 08:10 PM
From the lips of an enlighted and all talerent one. Wow.
Eric Larson July 26, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Rosemary, when you resort to name calling, you loss any credibility about your position. BTW, I am an independent voter.. I refuse to register with either party.
Russ July 26, 2012 at 08:20 PM
DAY - on your yellow cake comment. Try again. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
Rosemary C. July 26, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Sorry the nut just slipped out. Everyone talks about cutting spending but nobody comes up with any solutions. Anyone here getting Social Security? Should we cut that? If not that, then what entitlements? SS is the biggest. There will not be any progress made on the deficit until the party of no learns that compromise is ok. Obama had a deal worked out with Boehner on the deficit until Cantor and the Tea party got wind of it. Yes the same group that would push America over the fiscal edge rather than compromise. The same group that said they would not accept a million dollars of tax increases in return for ten million dollar of cuts. Now isn't that ridicuous!
Russ July 26, 2012 at 08:34 PM
To the anti-tax contingent in here, you do realize that Clinton raised taxes and the economy didn't suffer for it? I remember the 90s being a pretty good economic time, with lots of job creation. The basic argument is that raising taxes makes the rich less likely to take risk and hire more people. The reality is that tax cuts for the rich predominantly get pocketed, don't lead to new spending, and are not an effective method for economic stimulus. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/07/would-raising-taxes-on-rich-hurt-the-economy.html You can be against taxes in general, but then you have to give up social security, medicaid, medicare and being a military superpower, unless you don't care in any way about the national debt. You'd then have people desperate and dying in the streets. I'd suspect that the country would not be as pleasant of a place to live and crime would also be way up. The GOP had a lot of time where it controlled everything in DC, and the deficit exploded and then the economy exploded. I'm going to pass on just about anything the GOP wants to do.
Big Family July 26, 2012 at 08:37 PM
I believe the talking point word was "cliff" not "edge"
Rosemary C. July 26, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Actually it is about George Bush because Romney wants to pick up where W left off. I would hope we would all agree that we don't want to return to the ways that got us in this mess in the first place. While they were very very far from mainstream, at least Newt and Santorum had new ideas. It is a shame they weren't the nominees. It would be a lot more fun.
E.V. July 26, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Rosemary, Do the leftist loons at the Democrat National Comm. send you the talking points or do you visit the website yourself because obviously no sane person has your thoughts.
Len Destin July 26, 2012 at 09:55 PM
> you do realize that Clinton raised taxes and the economy didn't suffer for it You do realize this was during the dot com bubble right? So you want someone to blame eh? And of course you also know this is when Clinton and his cronies in the Fed Reserve decided to make easy money loans so everyone could 'afford' to buy a house even if they didn't have a job... AND the Clinton admin. gave up on regulating the CFTC, leading to the unregulated commodities markets which allowed the creation of collateralized debt obligations the sowing the seeds of the 2008 housing meltdown. AND failed to act on military intelligence leading the death of 3000+ innocent Americans on 9/11... Yeah - good times. Time to put down the hash pipe dude.
DAY July 27, 2012 at 01:02 AM
Sorry Russ. The reports confirm that our soldiers hauled the yellowcake out of there in 2008. Yellowcake uranium is serious material; and who cares whether it had been already confirmed that it was in Iraq prior to the hostilities? I'm glad we got it out of there. It was radioactive fodder for WMD. If you want to quibble about whether the dictator had restarted his WMD program, when, and how, go ahead. But you're flat out wrong.
DAY July 27, 2012 at 01:11 AM
- No Child Left Behind act with Kennedy - Medicare Schedule D Prescription Drug Program (which the government never lost money on) - $15 billion of AIDS medicine for Africa - Attempted to Restructure Social Security (which some of use won't be able to fully collect) - Two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history - Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains - Improved government efficiency by putting thousands of jobs up for bid. You see, Rosemary, when you don't have the birth of a brand new industry underneath your feet - the way Clinton did with the Internet boom - you can't get the economy working by raising taxes. Or do I have to remind you of the unemployment rate during Bush's terms - despite a post-Internet recession, and a crappy economy because of Al Qaeda's attacks. I don't recall him whining about inheriting those things.
DAY July 27, 2012 at 01:13 AM
You do realize that Clinton had the fortune of presiding over an economy that was experiencing the rare birth of a new industry: Internet. If not for that, his tax hikes would have suffocated the economy. As they always do. Or did you forget about that Internet thingy?
Anthony Veritas July 27, 2012 at 01:47 AM
Ernie, why are George II and Sarah Pain-in-the-ass not attending the GOP convention? Sorry, but Americans remember !
Anthony Veritas July 27, 2012 at 02:12 AM
How about the stock market today, you still riding the Bear Market?
Russ July 27, 2012 at 02:57 AM
@aVisitor - I find your comment to be pretty funny on a number of levels. 1) The economic success you claim is due to the Internet "bubble" - which apparently was not headed off by the tax increases. If you're going to argue that higher taxes destroy the economy, then don't you have to accept that higher taxes should have killed the bubble? That small business owners would have been deterred from creating jobs due to that incremental 4 or 5% more in taxes that they would have been paying under Clinton? I'll also point out that Bush lowered taxes and Obama lowered taxes further, and the economy hasn't been anywhere close to that good since. 2) No argument from me that deregulation was a bad idea - see repeal of affiliation rules in Glass Steagall. But, I hope you do realize that I'm those de-regulatory moves that Clinton made was widely supported, if not sponsored, by the GOP. Did I mention that Greenspan was appointed by Bush the Senior and that those loan policies continued for almost the entirety of Bush's 2 terms? You can't just say that everything is Clinton's fault. 3) Seriously, dude you want to blame CLINTON???!!!! for 9/11 - and then tell me to lay off the drugs. Why b/c he didn't invade Afghanistan after the first WTC bombing? 9/11 happened under Shrub, in case the hash pipe has clouded your memory.
Anthony Veritas July 27, 2012 at 03:08 AM
Weirdo????? who's the guy hiding his money in the mattress? LMAO ! You spent too much time with the Bama rednecks boy!
Anthony Veritas July 27, 2012 at 04:56 AM
where is your proof to support your SICK lies A-Hole ?
Anthony Veritas July 27, 2012 at 04:58 AM
where is your PROOF a-hole? Of course you have NONE !
WaxyGordon July 27, 2012 at 01:22 PM
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class." - on the economic and social classes in America


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something