Republican Senator McConnell rules ou...

Republican Senator McConnell rules out more taxes in fiscal fight

There are 111 comments on the Reuters story from Jan 6, 2013, titled Republican Senator McConnell rules out more taxes in fiscal fight. In it, Reuters reports that:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday ruled out raising tax revenues on top of the tax hike on the wealthy in the "fiscal cliff" deal, and said the full focus must now be on spending cuts to curb U.S. deficits.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#93 Jan 8, 2013
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>You HAD to gone to the same College of Loons that Pelousy went to. She ascribes to that left wing warped sense of reasoning. I'm not surprised to find out they a have Master of BS degree.
I have a BA, actually, and it's nice to see that you can't refute a single line I posted.

That makes you just another far-right noisemaker...

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#94 Jan 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a BA, actually, and it's nice to see that you can't refute a single line I posted.
That makes you just another far-right noisemaker...
BA, as in Bullshit Artist?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#95 Jan 8, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
BA, as in Bullshit Artist?
At least I'm not a Klansman, Georgia...;)

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#97 Jan 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I'm not a Klansman, Georgia...;)
you probably wouldn't pass our entrance exam. We have standards.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#98 Jan 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I'm not a Klansman, Georgia...;)
You aren't smart enough to be a Klansman,and they're pretty dumb.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#99 Jan 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2% increase goes directly into social security, not the general fund. Every penny collected through payroll tax is currently paid out to existing social security beneficiaries.
The money you put into social security is used to pay current beneficiaries; there is nothing to "pass on".
How is it you morons don't even understand how social security works?
Too many of us non-progressives do, that's the problem. Does the name Bernie Madoff ring a bell?
Cat741

United States

#100 Jan 8, 2013
Scalia, and Kennedy are leaving? I didn't know that. Dream on little liberal. There is a haggy old liberal who might die, but the rest seem pretty lively.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#101 Jan 8, 2013
Cat741 wrote:
Scalia, and Kennedy are leaving? I didn't know that. Dream on little liberal. There is a haggy old liberal who might die, but the rest seem pretty lively.
Should Justice Ginsberg die or step down, President Obama will name another liberal to replace her.

That's why we all worked so hard to get him re-elected.

Scalia & Kennedy are both over 75 y/o, which means statistically one or both will either die or step down in the next 4 years. Should they defy the odds and both make it through 2016 we will be working even harder to ensure a President Hillary is there to replace them on the court any time from 2017-2024.

It's only a matter of time, and they're getting older every day!

Since: Oct 08

Decatur, GA

#102 Jan 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Should Justice Ginsberg die or step down, President Obama will name another liberal to replace her.
That's why we all worked so hard to get him re-elected.
Scalia & Kennedy are both over 75 y/o, which means statistically one or both will either die or step down in the next 4 years. Should they defy the odds and both make it through 2016 we will be working even harder to ensure a President Hillary is there to replace them on the court any time from 2017-2024.
It's only a matter of time, and they're getting older every day!
so you're saying you want the SC to rule on things that voters might not want voted into law? legislate from the bench? Kinda like obamacare, most voters did not want it, but the SC said it was legal...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#104 Jan 9, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
so you're saying you want the SC to rule on things that voters might not want voted into law? legislate from the bench? Kinda like obamacare, most voters did not want it, but the SC said it was legal...
Obviously you don't understand how the SCOTUS works. They can't make laws, they can only rule whether EXISTING laws are constitutional or not.

The healthcare law WAS voted into law by our duly elected legislators. The SCOTUS ruled that law was constitutional. If the voters didn't want that law passed, then they shouldn't have voted for legislators who promised to pass such a law. If the voters don't want that law in effect anymore, they can elect legislators who can overturn that law any time they can get a majority to do so.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#105 Jan 9, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't make up s--t and pretend I said it. I know that's a rightie characteristic, but it's dishonest and wrong.
I'm saying that times change and peoples' needs change. Most people know that, but Conservatives tend to believe that what worked 70 years ago should still work today. It's called "living in the past."
What the ACA has to do with that I have no idea, just more of your Obama Derangement Syndrome, I assume.
Deflection, a leftie characteristic.
The issue is your claim that the recent increase in SS withholding is a return to the normal situation. The current witholding rate is not normal. It is simply the result of the latest increase in taxes.

Arguing that we can not depend on promises from our representatives is understandable, but should not be acceptable. Arguing that a promise made should not be expected to be kept is dishonest, if not criminal.

Be honest. SS withhlding of 6.2% is no more normal than withholding 4.2% When the reduction was made some years ago, it was touted as a reduction in payroll taxes. To argue that raising the withholding to 6.2% is not an increase is dishonest.

You can try to spin it anyway you like. The fact remains that taxes on the working middle class have increased even though Obama said they would not. If we cannot trust what Obama said less than a year ago, why should we trust what he said about ACA even further in the past.

By your own logic, the promises that the Obama administration made when trying to sell ACA to American citizens should not be relied upon. They occured, after all, in the past; further in the past than Obama's promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class. I merely suggested that Pelosi knew this all along and that may be the reason why she advised not even reading the bill. She knew that the bill, as written by a Progressive administration, is not worth the paper it's printed on. Nothing in it can be counted on; neither the promised benefits nor the projected costs.

You really ought to wake up, Professor. If you cannot believe your own President, why did you vote for him? Why do you still support him? Is it that hope thingy? You hope that he actually will do the things he says, even when evidence exists that he won't?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#106 Jan 9, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflection, a leftie characteristic.
The issue is your claim that the recent increase in SS withholding is a return to the normal situation. The current witholding rate is not normal. It is simply the result of the latest increase in taxes.
Arguing that we can not depend on promises from our representatives is understandable, but should not be acceptable. Arguing that a promise made should not be expected to be kept is dishonest, if not criminal.
Be honest. SS withhlding of 6.2% is no more normal than withholding 4.2% When the reduction was made some years ago, it was touted as a reduction in payroll taxes. To argue that raising the withholding to 6.2% is not an increase is dishonest.
You can try to spin it anyway you like. The fact remains that taxes on the working middle class have increased even though Obama said they would not. If we cannot trust what Obama said less than a year ago, why should we trust what he said about ACA even further in the past.
By your own logic, the promises that the Obama administration made when trying to sell ACA to American citizens should not be relied upon. They occured, after all, in the past; further in the past than Obama's promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class. I merely suggested that Pelosi knew this all along and that may be the reason why she advised not even reading the bill. She knew that the bill, as written by a Progressive administration, is not worth the paper it's printed on. Nothing in it can be counted on; neither the promised benefits nor the projected costs.
You really ought to wake up, Professor. If you cannot believe your own President, why did you vote for him? Why do you still support him? Is it that hope thingy? You hope that he actually will do the things he says, even when evidence exists that he won't?
The difference being the reduction in withholding was passed as a TEMPORARY reduction from the normal rate. Now we have returned to the normal withholding rate, just as intended in the legislation which reduced it.

I knew when Obama was saying taxes wouldn't go up on the middle class that he was referring to the federal income taxes.

If you were too stupid to understand that, then you probably believe you were "lied" to.

You already hate Obama, so does it really matter if you think Obama lied to you?

No.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#107 Jan 9, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
so you're saying you want the SC to rule on things that voters might not want voted into law? legislate from the bench? Kinda like obamacare, most voters did not want it, but the SC said it was legal...
Let's see. Obamacare, created by the GOP owned Heritage foundation, passed by the GOP in Mass, signed by governor Romney into law, negotiated by the GOP as the only option for Obama, and passed by the GOP only Roberts on the SC. The result is billions of dollars from people and businesses going to a few rich CEOs of insurance companies for nothing in return. When will Obama change his political affiliation to republican?

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#108 Jan 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference being the reduction in withholding was passed as a TEMPORARY reduction from the normal rate. Now we have returned to the normal withholding rate, just as intended in the legislation which reduced it.
I knew when Obama was saying taxes wouldn't go up on the middle class that he was referring to the federal income taxes.
If you were too stupid to understand that, then you probably believe you were "lied" to.
You already hate Obama, so does it really matter if you think Obama lied to you?
No.
Piffle.
According to the Professor, everything is temporary (unless you want to live in the past). Hence, there is no normal.

Spin all you want. Taxes were raised on the middle class, in spite of Obama's promises.

By the way, I don't "hate" anyone. I just shake my head and say, "What makes a person do that? He mustn't know any better."
You'll note, for example, that I don't stoop to personal attacks. I know better.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#109 Jan 9, 2013
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>You aren't smart enough to be a Klansman,and they're pretty dumb.
No surprise that, like Georgia, you're a fan of the KKK. Many righties are.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#110 Jan 9, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Piffle.
According to the Professor, everything is temporary (unless you want to live in the past). Hence, there is no normal.
Spin all you want. Taxes were raised on the middle class, in spite of Obama's promises.
By the way, I don't "hate" anyone. I just shake my head and say, "What makes a person do that? He mustn't know any better."
You'll note, for example, that I don't stoop to personal attacks. I know better.
No, you just misprepresent your opponents, attributing comments to them which they did not make.

For example, I never said "everything is temporary." or that there "is no normal."

SS withholding returned to normal levels. Spin all you want, the truth is out there.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#111 Jan 9, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflection, a leftie characteristic.
The issue is your claim that the recent increase in SS withholding is a return to the normal situation. The current witholding rate is not normal. It is simply the result of the latest increase in taxes.
..EDITED....
Nonsense. There WAS an SS witholding rate, Mr. Obama cut it 2% for a couple of years during the recovery, now it's been restored to that previous level.

Claiming that the normal "is not normal" merely indicates that you have no connection to reality. You can, will, and MUST call it a "tax increase" because that's what your party does. Misrepresentation for political gain, that's all you're doing here.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#112 Jan 9, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Piffle.
According to the Professor, everything is temporary (unless you want to live in the past). Hence, there is no normal.
Spin all you want. Taxes were raised on the middle class, in spite of Obama's promises.
By the way, I don't "hate" anyone. I just shake my head and say, "What makes a person do that? He mustn't know any better."
You'll note, for example, that I don't stoop to personal attacks. I know better.
Only an idiot thinks Obama promised payroll taxes wouldn't go up.

Anyone who is suprised wasn't paying attention.

Ignorance has consequences.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#118 Jan 10, 2013
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
another dope. Obama said it, you're wrong, as usual.
If you want to believe that you can. Either way I don't care that taxes went up; they need to go up more.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#121 Jan 10, 2013
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe, maybe not. But you were wrong on what Obama said and you're not man enough to admit it. A typical liberal.
BTW, where they would have to go up is on the middle class, I say go right ahead.
You heard what you wanted to hear.

I NEVER heard the President say payroll taxes weren't going back up to their normal 6.2% withholding rate.

If he DID say that, then I was wrong, but I never heard him say it.

Since these morons classify $100k-$250k as "middle class", then it'll only affect the top 15% of all wager earners.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 45 min Trumpster 9,789
News Why Vote? USHLI mentors Latino groups about vot... 2 hr Posting as myself 6
News N.J. clears way for children of undocumented im... 18 hr tomin cali 9
News N.J. clears way for children of undocumented im... Wed wild child 1
News American dream turns to nightmare for undocumen... Jun 27 spytheweb 1
Decision Jun 27 Dave B 1
News San Jose Activists Vow To Fight On In Wake Of S... Jun 24 spytheweb 4
More from around the web