STATE HOUSE BUREAU
Tax-cut extension divides delegation
Snowe, Collins favor continuation; Pingree, Michaud oppose it
By Rebekah Metzler rmetzler@mainetoday.com
MaineToday Media State House Writer
As the national economy continues to struggle, Congress is faced with a critical decision about whether to extend the federal tax cuts championed by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, which are due to expire in January.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud
Additional Photos Below
Last week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner went on a news media tour promoting a proposal by President Barack Obama that would extend the cuts for low- and middle-income Americans while allowing the cuts for top earners to lapse. Republicans say raising taxes for anyone now will only slow the already anemic economic recovery.
The issue has split Maine's congressional delegation along partisan lines.
U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans, said they would support extending all the current tax cuts, at least in the short term, even if they added to the deficit. U.S. Reps. Mike Michaud, D-2nd District, and Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, said they support allowing the cuts to end for people earning more than $250,000.
U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans, said they would support extending all the current tax cuts, at least in the short term, even if they added to the deficit. U.S. Reps. Mike Michaud, D-2nd District, and Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, said they support allowing the cuts to end for people earning more than $250,000.
Currently, there are six federal income tax brackets: 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent. Under Obama's proposal, the first four brackets would remain largely the same; but the top two rates, which would apply only to families earning more than $250,000, would rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. Those top rates would be the same tax levels as they were before the Bush cuts. About 13,000 Maine filers, out of more than 727,000, earn more than $250,000 annually and would be affected by the changes, according to the Maine Center for Economic Policy, a liberal-leaning think tank.
Other federal taxes affected by the expiring code are on capital gains and dividends, which would increase in many cases. Some common tax benefits, such as the child tax credit and the so-called marriage penalty, in which unmarried taxpayers pay less taxes than their married counterparts in the same income bracket, would be reduced if Congress does not act.
Both senators have been loath to approve any deficit spending in recent months that wasn't offset, with the exception of unemployment compensation extensions; but they said their concerns about changing the tax code now in the fragile economy outweigh those of adding to the federal deficit.
"Anything we do now is ultimately going to cast a pall over the economy," Snowe said of potential tax increases. "Any adjustments in the tax code at this point would have a perverse effect, certainly on small businesses, because they are captured in all those top brackets, as much as people say this is about tax cuts for the wealthy." Snowe said a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses indicated that 20 million workers are employed by small businesses that would be affected by the top two tax rate changes.
"When people say the tax cuts are for the wealthy and so on, for me it's what the implications are for small businesses making over $250,000," she said. "I mean, if you look at the lines that are drawn, it captures a lot of small businesses."
Snowe supported the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001, but opposed those initiated in 2003.
At the time, Snowe said any tax cuts totaling more than $350 billion should be offset. They were not. Collins voted to support both sets of cuts.
"The last thing we should do in the midst of a recession is to raise taxes," Collins said in a recent interview. "Most economists agree that that could plunge us back into a deeper recession and that it would cause GDP not to increase as rapidly."
Collins said she opposes the Obama administration's proposal because it would hurt small businesses.
"We need those small businesses to be able to invest and create more jobs during this difficult economic period, not take more money out of it," she said. Michaud and Pingree, however, said they support letting some of the cuts expire. For Michaud, it was a matter of mounting debt; and for Pingree, it was a moral issue.
"Like Senator Snowe, I opposed the tax cuts that passed in 2003 because I believed our nation could not afford them and they were targeted to the wealthiest among us, with little benefit to most families in Maine's 2nd Congressional District. That fact has not changed," Michaud said in a statement. "The Bush tax cuts are also the single largest contributor to our ballooning debt. In fact, extending them would cost our country $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years alone."
Pingree said it doesn't make sense to give tax cuts to the wealthy while most Americans are struggling.
"Now is not the time to raise taxes on working Americans, so I'm in favor of extending tax breaks for families making less than $250,000," she said in a statement. "However, we should let the tax cuts for the rich expire."
The issue probably will dominate much of Congress' time when it returns from August break, with the looming November elections influencing many members' decisions.
Snowe, who is up for re-election in 2012, said simply extending the current tax code is not a permanent solution. A plan for tackling comprehensive tax reform next year is being discussed, she said.
"We have to have tax reform; it's indisputable," she said. "The tax code is a simple mess, frankly; and it's created perverse incentives, it's affected the average American, it's too complex and costly and bureaucratic. So we have to go back to the drawing board, without question."
Rebekah Metzler -- 620-7016
rmetzler@mainetoday.com
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Additional Photos
 |
||||||||||||||
 click image to enlarge
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe |
 click image to enlarge
U.S. Sen. Susan Collins |
|||||||||||||
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
50 COMMENTS
ewv said...
As usual Snowe and Collins come down on every side of every issue, being unprincipled on principle, while the other two clowns are in the usual soak-the-rich mode. No one mentions that government revenues after the Bush tax cuts were higher, not lower, and that the tax reform did not cause the deficit. Keeping the current rates would not be a tax "cut", but a huge tax increase. Not raising taxes on the "rich" is not a cause of the explosion in the deficit due to the escalating spending by the progressives. But more fundamentally, the primary reason to not raise taxes is that assets belong to individuals, not the government, regardless of statist government policy desired by progressives in the name of the "practical".
July 31, 2010 at 12:38 AM Report abuse
Jazz11 said...
Yea, The Bush Tax cut that provided 94.7% of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of the country. This is the same 1% that now hang onto their money and refuse to reinvest anything according to Bloomberg reports. We do not need continued welfare for the wealthy. The working man has received what he always has from the R's. A big fat "0". If you look back to the Eisenhower administration you will find the tax rate was a whopping 54% and our economy was held up for the world to see. Our standard of living has slipped to the point where major corporations move their manufacturing jobs to Mexico, placing profits above the working man. These are the same owners clammoring for the tax cuts. When will we wake up?
July 31, 2010 at 4:07 AM Report abuse
KnightDriver said...
Is it November yet?
July 31, 2010 at 5:38 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
Since the Top 50% of wage earners, pay 96.03% of all taxes. It only reasons that any tax cut would affect them the most. You cannot cut taxes to people who do not pay them.
July 31, 2010 at 7:04 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
Nevertheless, since Jazz1 brought it up lets look at the 4%. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) created six tax rate brackets--10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, based on income levels. If no extension is passed and signed into law, then the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. The 10% bracket would disappear, and those taxpayers would move up to the 15% bracket, which would apply to all incomes below $34,550. Suck to be middle class under Obama. One major provision that will expire at the end of 2010 is the child tax credit, which EGTRRA doubled from $500 to $1,000 per child. Unless Congress votes to extend the child tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA will go back into effect. Suck to be a family under Obama
July 31, 2010 at 7:14 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
EGTRRA also eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty" and gave a married couple filing jointly a standard deduction twice that of a single filer. Tax rates were also adjusted for joint filers to remove the penalty. These provisions are set to expire as well. Why does Obama hate familys?
July 31, 2010 at 7:14 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
“These are the same owners clammoring for the tax cuts.”----Little side note Jazz11, no business or corporation pays taxes, ever. They are passed to the consumer, us, as operating cost. It is a hidden tax on the people.
July 31, 2010 at 7:41 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Tax cuts don't "pay for themselves," as RepubliCONS say. If Bush's "tax cuts" for the super wealthy were good for the economy, then we would have a good economy. The argument that Obama created this economic mess is both disgusting for the naked lie it represents, and sad for the ignorance it presupposes among the general population. Americans are smarter than that. Republicans also are typically suggesting the sunset of this absurd boondoggle to benefit the wealthy on the backs of everyone else is a "tax increase." No, a SEA OF RED INK, like the deficit largely CREATED by the Bush tax cuts, is a whopping tax increase.
July 31, 2010 at 8:37 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Let's see, here's Republican thinking: we've got two wars and a massive budget deficit, so let's give "tax cuts" the the wealthy because they're going to create "jobs." Really? Doing what? Starting "call centers" for low wages and no benefits? So much for living wages ever again in America. That's the anti-rationality that Republicans offer.
July 31, 2010 at 8:49 AM Report abuse
emF4eHRvbg%3D%3D said...
Nice Saturday morning, great weather, some relaxing and enjoying. Then a check in with the Sentinel and see these four mug shots! God help the State of Maine, God help our country.
July 31, 2010 at 9:05 AM Report abuse
Robinwhod said...
Cut spending.
July 31, 2010 at 10:00 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
Tax cuts don't "pay for themselves," ???? How do you “pay” for cutting income? It is not the governments money and does not need to be paid for. Spend less.
July 31, 2010 at 11:23 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
Why is Obama raising taxes on people who make less them $34,550? Bush cut their taxes. Is $34,550 Wealth?
July 31, 2010 at 11:26 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Heyyou, Again with the IGNORAANT and FALSE GOP talking points! Bush's tax cuts were for the wealthy, dumped the economy and created a massive federal debt. The subset in this is both needed and is not an increase on anyone. If this tax cut is extended, then the middle will pay a shift from what the wealthy pay downward. That's TRUTH you ignorant REPUBLICON!
July 31, 2010 at 11:43 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Republicans: Deficit Doesn’t Matter if Rich Benefit Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona – the GOP’s No. 2 leader – demanded that Congress extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, no matter what it would add to the deficit. This comes only DAYS after Republicans – citing deficit fears – refused to extend unemployment insurance benefits to those who are out of work. Keep in mind, these benefits keep roofs over people’s heads and put food on their tables! Their skewed priorities are disgusting, and their callousness is shocking. Sign our petition, and call them out. Extending tax cuts for the richest Americans while letting the unemployed fend for themselves is simply wrong. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
July 31, 2010 at 11:46 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Heyyou, Given that you think Bush did a great job, anything you say at this point is the rambling of a knuckle dragging loon.
July 31, 2010 at 11:57 AM Report abuse
hallowellboy said...
Jazz11 is absolutely correct. These tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans do nothing but make them wealthier at the expense of the other 99% of taxpaying Americans. We have 10% unemployment and we're giving millionaires more of our tax money? While there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, they should still have to pay their fair share of taxes on earned income and profits. Reagan and the Bushes ran the economy into deep debt with unjustified wars in order to fill the coffers of the industrial military complex, deregulate corrupt Wall Street firms and overlook their scamming Savings and Loans pals. Funny how Snowe and Collins have no problem increasing the national debt when their contributors are on the receiving end. Remember how they said we couldn't add to the national debt for health care for working Americans? Disgraceful.
July 31, 2010 at 12:07 PM Report abuse
heyyou said...
“Heyyou, Given that you think Bush did a great job, anything you say at this point is the rambling of a knuckle dragging loon.”---Please quote when I said that. In fact I was critical of spending and bailouts. When Bush was right I support him when he was wrong I stated it. The problem for you is the truth is a problem. I have post facts on the taxes and Obama attack of the poor and middle class. Again, If the top 50% of wage earners, pay 96.03% of all taxes any tax cuts will effect the rich. However if only the rich got tax breaks why are my taxes going up 1/3 higher. Why are taxes going up on people making under $34,550? “should still have to pay their fair share of taxes on earned income and profits” The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes.
July 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM Report abuse
heyyou said...
All facts from Forbes.com, -- http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/expiring-bush-cuts-affect-personal-finance-taxes.html The same fact are at Yahoo news---http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-a The Washington Post----http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073004758.html Financial Edge----http://financialedge.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0710/How-Will-The-Expiring-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Affect-You.aspx
July 31, 2010 at 1:23 PM Report abuse
Robinwhod said...
Free everything for everybody. Now that should put people back to work just trying to make all that free stuff for everybody. A perpetual economy would result from creating stuff and disposing of stuff as fast as the stuff is created. Oh wait, that's what we do now only a few people are paying for all the stuff... Sounds like a Republicratic platform does it not...
July 31, 2010 at 1:30 PM Report abuse
heyyou said...
More fact to mess up your day.. Despite the accusation that it was the very wealthiest who benefited the most from the 2001 tax cut, their federal tax burden stayed level at best and increased at worst. Progressivity in the tax system rose and the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor. We can also look at the overall share of federal taxes paid to detect a similar pattern. For example:3 • From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile saw their share of the total tax burden drop from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. • Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. • The top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent; the top 5 percent's share rose from 28.2 to 38.5 percent; and those in the top 1 percent saw their share skyrocket from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.
July 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM Report abuse
heyyou said...
During the 2005 budget reconciliation debate, critics claimed that Republicans were cutting spending for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich; however, the facts simply do not support these overheated claims and the accusation that poor families are shouldering more of the tax burden while receiving less of the spending is empirically false. •From 1979 through 2003, the total federal tax burden on the highest-earning percentage of Americans -- who earn 52 percent of all income -- rose from 56 percent to 66 percent of all taxes. •Their share of individual income taxes jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent. •On the spending side, antipoverty spending has leaped from 9.1 percent of all federal spending in 1990 to a record 16.3 percent in 2004
July 31, 2010 at 1:53 PM Report abuse
heyyou said...
President Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats, and he was right. When the economy grows, rich and poor alike benefit from rising wages, incomes, and productivity. Conversely, stagnation hurts all income classes simultaneously. The evidence from the 1960s through today illustrates that lower tax rates correlate with rising incomes for all sections of the population. Even cuts on capital gains and dividends, often though to benefit only rich stockholders, allow for greater investment and more job creation, which ultimately helps lower-income Americans. Though the wealthy pay an enormous share of the overall tax burden, tax cuts on their income would not only bring in more revenue, but would help lower-income Americans become more upwardly mobile.
July 31, 2010 at 1:54 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Heyyou, President Kennedy's tax rate wasn't part of the current Republian scheme to bilk the majority of Americans. Republicans are not practicing fairness, they are practicing communism for the wealthy. You're kidding yourself, but of course you would, if you were smarter you wouldn't be lapping at the boots of the rich that seek tax breaks to move companies overseas. Republican: We'll say anything!
July 31, 2010 at 2:44 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Proof that Republicans are helping to WIPE OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS (no surprise, they never wanted anything but a ruling class): 01 ) 83% of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1% of the people. 02 ) 61% of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49% in 2008 and 43% in 2007. 03 ) 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. 04 ) 36% of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings. 05 ) A staggering 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. 06 ) 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
July 31, 2010 at 2:46 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
More PROOF that Republicans want to destroy the middle class: 07 ) Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32% increase over 2008. 08 ) Only the top 5% of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. 09 ) For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together. 10 ) In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to 1. 11 ) As of 2007, the bottom 80% of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets. 12 ) The bottom 50% of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.
July 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
More PROOF that Republicans want to DESTROY the middle class: 13 ) Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17% when compared with 2008. 14 ) In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector. 15 ) The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. 16 ) In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. 17 ) More than 40% of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying. 18 ) For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
July 31, 2010 at 2:48 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
More PROOF that Republicans want to destroy the middle class: 19 ) This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour. 20 ) Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16% to 7.8 million in 2009. 21 ) Approximately 21% of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years. 22 ) The top 10% of Americans now earn around 50% of our national income.
July 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker ten times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool. [...] The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
July 31, 2010 at 3:04 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Republicans merely manipulate the most IGNORANT of American society, getting them to buy into a false populism that translates in practice into stealing from everyone from the rich. Here is PROOF of their manipulative RepubliCON playbook: Frank Luntz Republican Playbook PART X "APPENDIX: THE 14 WORDS NEVER TO USE" APPENDIX: THE 14 WORDS NEVER TO USE 1. Government - Washington NEVER SAY: Government INSTEAD SAY: Washington 2. Privatization/Private Accounts - Personalization/Personal Accounts NEVER SAY: Privatization/Private Accounts INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts 3 Tax Reform - Tax Simplification NEVER SAY: Tax Reform INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification 4. Inheritance/Estate Tax - The Death Tax NEVER SAY: Inheritance/Estate Tax INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax 5. A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism - Free Market Economy NEVER SAY: Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy
July 31, 2010 at 3:12 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Check what Snowe and Collins say, they are following the REPUBLICAN playbook!
July 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Republicans merely manipulate the most IGNORANT of American society, getting them to buy into a false populism that translates in practice into stealing from everyone from the rich. Here is PROOF of their manipulative RepubliCON playbook: Frank Luntz Republican Playbook PART X "APPENDIX: THE 14 WORDS NEVER TO USE" APPENDIX: THE 14 WORDS NEVER TO USE 1. Government - Washington NEVER SAY: Government INSTEAD SAY: Washington 2. Privatization/Private Accounts - Personalization/Personal Accounts NEVER SAY: Privatization/Private Accounts INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts 3 Tax Reform - Tax Simplification NEVER SAY: Tax Reform INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification 4. Inheritance/Estate Tax - The Death Tax NEVER SAY: Inheritance/Estate Tax INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax 5. A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism - Free Market Economy NEVER SAY: Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy
July 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Check what Snowe and Collins are saying, they're following the Republican playbook!
July 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
If somebody going to work a 40 hours a week they should be able to, Put their kids through school, they should be able to have and keep their home, they should be able to take a vacation, they should be able to cover 100% of their medical expenses, without any problems, and they should be able to set aside enough, that they will be able to retire with grace and dignity. THAT is the American Dream ... The American Dream IS having a Living Wage. (and I'm telling ya, 28 years of Republican have stolen it from us!)"
July 31, 2010 at 3:25 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
How do we explain the FALSE populism of Republicans? People who live in "double wides" voting for billionaires to receive TAX CUTS? America may be headed for a reverse French Revolution with so many Americans insisting on giving mote money and power to the very men that are holding them down and denying their prosparity. I can't decide if the voters are suicidal or just masochistic, but we sure love getting pounded by the guys at the top. Thank you, Insurance Industry. May we have another? God, I love going bankrupt over my medical bills. More debt, please.
July 31, 2010 at 3:47 PM Report abuse
ThistleDew said...
LeRue, take a xanax...make it two.
July 31, 2010 at 3:51 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Thistle, That's your typical MO, you can't argue the facts, you're "logic" is blown out of the water, and so all you have is to offer some stupic comment aimed at suggesting the material offered is worthless garble. You want to know what's worthless? Your absurd Republican party and the anti-egalitarian "beliefs" you offer day in and day out. Why the heck don't YOU take whatever you need to be a THINKING person, instead of a worthless, anti-rational RepubliCON! Hah, "Thistle"??
July 31, 2010 at 5:43 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Thistle, That's your typical MO, you can't argue the facts, your "logic" is blown out of the water, and so all you have is to offer some stupic comment aimed at suggesting the material offered is worthless garble. You want to know what's worthless? Your absurd Republican party and the anti-egalitarian "beliefs" you offer day in and day out. Why the heck don't YOU take whatever you need to be a THINKING person, instead of a worthless, anti-rational RepubliCON! Hah, "Thistle"??
July 31, 2010 at 5:44 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Republicans are hypocrites all up the line, they wail on the inability of government to help THE PEOPLE... yet use government programs and coffers to line the pockets of THEIR PEOPLE. They shout NOW about fiscal responsibility, but where were they when THEY started spending A BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK on the occupation of Iraq. Modern American Republicans should hang their heads in shame because they allowed their leadership to make such a mess of things.
July 31, 2010 at 6:04 PM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Republicans are hypocrites all up the line, they wail on the inability of government to help THE PEOPLE... yet use government programs and coffers to line the pockets of THEIR PEOPLE. They shout NOW about fiscal responsibility, but where were they when THEY started spending A BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK on the occupation of Iraq. Modern American Republicans should hang their heads in shame because they allowed their leadership to make such a mess of things.
July 31, 2010 at 6:06 PM Report abuse
longpondloon said...
I just cannot stop thinking how lucky we would be today if we had elected Gore, Edwards or Kerry...Just think about it.
July 31, 2010 at 8:57 PM Report abuse
freshwater said...
“People who live in "double wides" voting for billionaires to receive TAX CUTS?”- This is a very rational action. In regards to the lower tax on capital included in the Bush Tax Cuts, the increase in investment by “billionaires” in reaction to the lower tax on capital will increase the capital stock. As capital stock increases the after tax return on capital will fall until approximately returning to the original rate of return. Over time, the benefits of the increase in capital accrue not to the owners of the capital (“billionaires”) but to labor. Labor benefits directly from the increase in investment in capital stock while the owners of capital see their after tax returns stay relatively constant. The positive response of investment to a reduction in a capital tax shifts the benefits of a reduction in a capital tax from capital to labor. These voters are not suicidal or masochistic as you suggest, but are smart enough to see how lower taxes on capital will benefit them.
August 1, 2010 at 6:02 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
Freshwater, Who are you kidding, 50% of America's wealth is being held by 10% of its population. who are you kidding? Only yourself!
August 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM Report abuse
ewv said...
Whatever percentage of assets is actually "held" by whom, i.e. owned, those who own more obviously own a bigger percentage than those who don't. So what? That is not a stunning insight. The higher achievements of some do not take from others. Assets are created in a dynamic society and belong to individuals, they are not a static pie owned by "society", to be meted out "equally". Those who are unable or unwilling to make greater achievements in a capitalist society would be no better off, in fact worse off, without the improvements in productivity and standard of living made possible by those who create them. The demands for egalitariansm are based on seething envy, which in turn leads to the pressure group warfare of the dog-eat-dog welfare state, which is increasingly what we are getting, along with the entrenchment of wealth and political privilege "held" by the political class. Allow everyone freedom to produce and keep what he earns and everyone's possibilities increase.
August 2, 2010 at 2:34 AM Report abuse
TheLeRue said...
EWV, We used to have a vibrant middle class. The higher percentage of assets held by the fewer, the smaller the middle class gets. Simple except if you're a conservatard.
August 2, 2010 at 9:01 PM Report abuse
ewv said...
The wealth in a free nation is produced and grows, it not allocated out of a static pie. One person's improvement is created, not taken from someone else. The independent middle class in this country, to say nothing of Maine, is being destroyed by the taxes and controls by the government. I sure know what it is doing to me and how it is happening in the name of 'soak the rich' class warfare.
August 4, 2010 at 2:46 PM Report abuse
hankspeed3 said...
This is very very simple. Democrats want to take more of what you earn...and Republicans want you to keep more of what you earn. Funny how the liberals have had at least a 2/3rds majority for over 40 years...and look at the condition of Maine. You cant keep blaming Republicans or Bush for that matter when democrats have been in control of this state. Liberals, you have had over 40 years. We've tried it your way. You've had your chance. You cannot, nor will you ever be able to tax your way into prosperity.
August 7, 2010 at 8:04 AM Report abuse
Abetterplace said...
The US House of Representatives appear to be mirroring Maine's Legislature. "Kill job creation" should be the Democrats campaign slogan, even if they say it's not it is. Actions speak louder than words. Maine voters fire Michaud and Pingree this Nov. vote for Jason Levesque and Dean Scrontras. Because this election is about the ECONOMY. And do not continue to vote for your Democratic State Legislators. They have had 30+ years to mess up Maine's economy, enough is enough!
August 8, 2010 at 9:20 AM Report abuse
Teufel said...
Have you ever seen the movie "A Clockwork Orange"? Have a look at Pingree's right eye. That thing is either glass or misformed. I wouldn't trust her..nope. Not with an eye like that.
August 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM Report abuse
paulieparrot said...
I think Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud should hook up! They look like they'd make a cute couple!
August 8, 2010 at 11:44 PM Report abuse