This is why Republicans are dubbed Obstuctionists

[RIJIMMY]

taint no big deal?
below would mean - without factoring ANYTHING for tax rate or salary. I pay $1000 more in taxes ( I have 2 kids!)
So add in marriage penalty and tax rate - I'll be paying to less that $3000 in addl taxes - MINIMUM???

THIS IS NOT POLITICS BUT REAL MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANT AFFORD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most ordinary people these days are paying a marginal rate of 15% or 25%. If we let the tax cuts expire, that might rise for many to 28%. Based on data supplied by the AICPA these ordinary folks would take a tax bump of anywhere between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars.

For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500. Ouch.

[scottw]

you can afford it...so can "the rich".... shut up and pay...maybe sell some of those luxuries...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

Except of course, that the plan of the administration would keep the Bush tax rate for everyone under $250,000. If you had the number for $280,000 then it would be a valid point.

I'm actually in favor of keeping the cuts for everyone under $500,000 or $1,000,000/yr to take any potential impacts to most small businesses that fall just above the 250K mark...

Johnny's point is that this type of obstructionism will revert independents back to the the left if they continue playing these games.

[scottw]

I would think that the "game playing" would be arbitrarily deciding who has to fork over more of their income to the govt and who doesn't and routinely moving that threshold depending on the political advantage

I'm ok with "obstructionists" when they're obstructing "destructionists"

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Johnny's point is that this type of obstructionism will revert independents back to the the left if they continue playing these games.

Exactly my point. My post wasn't about the policies they are trying to push to the forefront, it was about what, if any, public image issues may come out of these actions.

Piscator is right that most voters probably don't take the time to educate themselves on pressing topics, and it's exactly those people I have in mind when it comes to the possible ramifications to the GOPs public image.

People on the Right are immediately going to support the actions stating something along the lines of how the tax cuts will help the economy and we need to set the budget. People on the Left are going to say, "There go the Republicans being obstructionists again."

But what are the people truly in the Middle going to think?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except of course, that the plan of the administration would keep the Bush tax rate for everyone under $250,000. If you had the number for $280,000 then it would be a valid point.

I'm actually in favor of keeping the cuts for everyone under $500,000 or $1,000,000/yr to take any potential impacts to most small businesses that fall just above the 250K mark...

Johnny's point is that this type of obstructionism will revert independents back to the the left if they continue playing these games.

Your blessed Dems are not on the same page with this either. They couldn't get a vote done when they had full control.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

Your blessed Dems are not on the same page with this either. They couldn't get a vote done when they had full control.

No %$%$%$%$. it's frustrating that both sides hem and haw until they have a month left and then try to get something done.

It is unfortunate that we have two largely unfunded wars ongoing, but we can't extend unemployment at least through the holidays....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No %$%$%$%$. it's frustrating that both sides hem and haw until they have a month left and then try to get something done.

It is unfortunate that we have two largely unfunded wars ongoing, but we can't extend unemployment at least through the holidays....

the Repubs are willing to extend but want money used that is already been allocated elsewhere and is not being used rather than going further into debt....

I found this interesting

Unemployment Extension Battle In Washington Will Affect Only A Few In Connecticut
By MARA LEE, maralee@courant.com

The Hartford Courant
November 29, 2010

Last summer, Republicans in the Senate blocked long-term unemployment benefits for 51 days, and in the first month, almost 2.2 million people stopped getting checks. Eventually, they were paid for the time during the gap.

The same program expires today, and advocates for the unemployed estimate that another 2 million people will stop getting checks in December if Congress doesn't vote to renew it before representatives go home for Christmas.

Republicans in the House voted against the $12.5 billion program last week because cuts were not made elsewhere in the budget to offset it. The Senate has not yet voted.

In Connecticut, few of the nearly 80,000 people who have been getting unemployment checks for more than six months would be affected because of the way state laws interact with the patchwork of federal extensions. (Almost 60 percent of the state's unemployed have been out of work for more than six months.)

Compensation for the first six months of unemployment comes from a fund paid by employers and managed by the state. The next year and a week of checks are paid by the federal government, but the time was added piecemeal as unemployment rates climbed. When the legislation expires people don't get kicked off immediately, but as they reach the end of each segment, anywhere from one to 20 weeks from now.In states like New York, that means their checks dry up. And that will affect a few hundred New York residents who used to work in Connecticut.

But in Connecticut, unemployed in those segments, almost 60,000 people, will transition to an emergency program that's not part of the extension legislation, with 20 more weeks of coverage. It had been paid 100 percent by the federal government, but after the deadline, it becomes half-state, half-federal.

A few Connecticut residents will lose checks sooner, according to Chris Gilly, an operational support manager at the Department of Labor.

"I'd say it's in the dozens. It's not a large number of people," he said. "You couldn't say nobody's benefits will cease."

Those residents did a little temporary work in the past year, and didn't earn enough to qualify for unemployment, he said.


Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant


Related storiesAround the Web
Jobless Benefits Cutoff Begins for 2 Million Americans|aolnews.com
E-mail Print Digg Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon Share
Comments (0)Add comments | Discussion FAQ
Currently there are no comments. Be the first to comment!




Free newsletters! Sign up for Breaking News, Huskies, Weekender, Midday Business and more.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No %$%$%$%$. it's frustrating that both sides hem and haw until they have a month left and then try to get something done.

It is unfortunate that we have two largely unfunded wars ongoing, but we can't extend unemployment at least through the holidays....

No excuse for being unemployed for more then 2 years get a job or create one yourself. Alot of these people collecting won't take a job that pays less then they are collecting. I know several and they are out hunting this week while I work. The Holidays...your breaking my heart.

FYI...Mr. Independent started this thread by calling Republicans "Obstuctionists".

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

FYI...Mr. Independent started this thread by calling Republicans "Obstuctionists".

"Hearing is a Sense, Listening is a Skill."

I started this thread by stating that I agree with their position but think they are hurting their public image through the way they are going about it.

Then, I made what has been proven to be a futile attempt at promoting discussion by asking, "how do you guys think this will effect the public image of the Republicans in the eyes of Independents? What's the strategy behind making the announcement now with barely 3 weeks left in the year as opposed to right after, or even before the elections?"

Unfortunately (as is typical), most people in here are incapable of *discussing* a topic and just want to bitch and complain while repeating the same statements they do in every single thread here.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"Hearing is a Sense, Listening is a Skill."

I started this thread by stating that I agree with their position but think they are hurting their public image through the way they are going about it.

Then, I made what has been proven to be a futile attempt at promoting discussion by asking, "how do you guys think this will effect the public image of the Republicans in the eyes of Independents? What's the strategy behind making the announcement now with barely 3 weeks left in the year as opposed to right after, or even before the elections?"

Unfortunately (as is typical), most people in here are incapable of *discussing* a topic and just want to bitch and complain while repeating the same statements they do in every single thread here.

affect

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"Hearing is a Sense, Listening is a Skill."

I started this thread by stating that I agree with their position but think they are hurting their public image through the way they are going about it.

Then, I made what has been proven to be a futile attempt at promoting discussion by asking, "how do you guys think this will effect the public image of the Republicans in the eyes of Independents? What's the strategy behind making the announcement now with barely 3 weeks left in the year as opposed to right after, or even before the elections?"

Unfortunately (as is typical), most people in here are incapable of *discussing* a topic and just want to bitch and complain while repeating the same statements they do in every single thread here.

Man, you are pretty ignorant Johnny. I try not to insult here but your post was directly answered multpile time in a non-partisian fashion. Me thinks (as buckman noted , your thread title) you were just baiting to bash repubs. Sorry we are able to use our critical thinking and realize that you can BS around an issue or you can get it resolved. You view the action by the repubs as obstruction, I view it as getting it done. Lets see what the populace response to the repubs action is the first week in January and everyones paycheck is less. Will the blame the repubs?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

"Hearing is a Sense, Listening is a Skill."

I started this thread by stating that I agree with their position but think they are hurting their public image through the way they are going about it.

Then, I made what has been proven to be a futile attempt at promoting discussion by asking, "how do you guys think this will effect the public image of the Republicans in the eyes of Independents? What's the strategy behind making the announcement now with barely 3 weeks left in the year as opposed to right after, or even before the elections?"

Unfortunately (as is typical), most people in here are incapable of *discussing* a topic and just want to bitch and complain while repeating the same statements they do in every single thread here.

The Republicans are doing just what they were told to do in the election. Lower taxes and less spending.