Congressional Progressives Angry Over Continuation of Bush Tax Cuts

Snidely Whiplash
First things first...let's STOP calling this a "tax cut." It is not a cut in taxes but merely a NOT raising of tax rates. It is a continuation of the Bush tax cuts put in place in '03. Essentially if nothing is done to preserve the rates that are set to sunset at midnight on 12/31 this year, the net effect is a tax increase. The question is do Democrats want to preside over a tax rate increase in these economic times?

If they allow the rates to rise on January 1, it will be entirely in the laps of Democrats. One would think after the drubbing on November 2, they would be more circumspect, but then again when one is busy presiding over the intentional destruction of a nation, well it is what it is. Amazing nonetheless.

By the numbers, no matter how many times lefties repeat it, tax cuts do not need to be "paid for," and every time I hear that I want to throttle them for the incessant repetition of this stupidity that empirical evidence proves is not at all accurate. And now as of this writing Congressional progressives are threatening to derail the preservation of current rates. Just like the petulant children I have for years claimed they are, here they are throwing a snit for all to see. I love their little tantrums, don't you?

The end result of the progressive snit will be the following...the end of any chatter of unemployment compensation extension and a tax increase on all Americans including those struggling to hold down a job and keep themselves and families solvent. And all because, as the lefties love to say, "the top 2% will benefit." What more proof is needed to expose the nature and intentions of progressives?

Here they are letting the deal to extend unemployment expire and raising taxes on everyone, just to try and make sure the "top 2%" don't get a tax cut? So we should make 98% suffer so 2% don't benefit? Is this odd, or is it just me? What more proof is needed that all that liberal, feel good chatter is just rhetoric? If they had all this empathy and concern wouldn't they want to see those struggling to benefit and thus have an improved quality of life? But to exercise their anger at the top 2% they will allow all the rest to be harmed. Truth is put to the liberal lie yet again!

How anyone can ever again accept the liberal premise of concern and have that carry any weight is totally beyond me. Clearly they do not care for the actual plight of the unfortunate, and all so they can see their imagined enemy, the top 2%, not benefit.

How is this "bipartisan? How is this give and take? How is this negotiation? I thought working together and COMPROMISE was so important to them? Recall that the left was against the top 2% seeing a continuation of the current tax rates, but they wanted to see the unemployed get an extension of benefits and many wanted to see the middle class have continued lower tax rates. So how does it look now?

Clearly the left does not want to negotiate. They want what they demand all the while also wanting to see their imagined enemies suffer. Isn't the arrangement that was reached the epitome of negotiation, compromise and both parties moving toward the others position to reach a workable agreement? Each party got SOME of what they wished for in the tentative agreement, yet now the left is up in arms because a compromise was reached. Isn't this proof positive that all the gum flapping about "bipartisanship" was just that...lip service on the part of Democrats? Seems undeniable to me.

The end result is once again progressives are laid bare. Their petulance dooms them, if anyone bothers to notice. They are not at all about compromise if it means they have to give in to anything. Haven't I been screaming for years that all their talk was just lip service? These are angry people who somehow laid claim to some high ground of concern and caring yet the facts and progressives words from their own mouths today expose them for what they really are all about.

They are about getting everything they want and trying to make sure no one else is accommodated along the way. If in getting their way and in doing harm to those they wish to harm is more important than actual assisting of those who need it, that isn't compromise at all. That is petulance and childish demanding. Folks, as noble as the Democrat Party may once have been, this current crop of progressives are to truth and honor what a lying traitor is to their country.

If I were a Democrat voter my ears would be red and I would be embarrassed by the actions of my elected leaders. Any chance there is any honor among them? I won't hold my breath. How this turns out I can't say but today's revelations are par for the course with progressives. I told ya.

Published by Snidely Whiplash

Nuthin' of note.  View profile

13 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Patricia Sicilia12/28/2010

    My elected leaders are being held hostage and blackmailed by the right. Unfortunately, my leaders are allowing themselves to be held hostage and blackmailed, and THAT's what I'm embarrassed about. As for honor, let's talk again about that republican vow the day after the election. Any honor there? I think not!

  • Patricia Sicilia12/28/2010

    And don't even try to argue that the repubs want to keep the higher taxes for the rich but lower them for the middle class. They don't. They're little game is working perfectly because they've managed to turn this around and make the dems look bad when THEY are the ones who announced the day after the election they would block every democrat proposal, ON ANY ISSUE, unless the tax cuts were retained. I just cannot believe this country is allowing the wool to be pulled over their eyes and the blame to be shifted where it doesn't belong.

  • Patricia Sicilia12/28/2010

    It IS a tax cut if it's the continuation of Bush era tax cuts which should never have happened in the first place! I certainly didn't see any massive change in my income due to these alleged "tax cuts." And no one is ever going to convince me that corporations can't forgo a one or two percent profit amount and still rake in more money than God, while paying a bit more taxes to stabilize our fiscal health.

  • Patricia Sicilia12/28/2010

    It IS a tax cut if it's the continuation of Bush era tax cuts which should never have happened in the first place! I certainly didn't see any massive change in my income due to these alleged "tax cuts." And no one is ever going to convince me that corporations can't forgo a one or two percent profit amount and still rake in more money than God, while paying a bit more taxes to stabilize our fiscal health.

  • Tyler Mills12/16/2010

    Most of what you write here Jim, i deem to be accurate. I would quibble with you on one key point. The inheritance/ estate/death tax is being brought to a lower percentage than it was during the Bush era.

    The inheritance/estate/death tax is being cut, we agree that the rest of this is not a tax cut however.

  • Agnes Farside12/12/2010

    Point on.

  • David Hudson12/9/2010

    Said it better than I ever could, Snidely. They wanted us to "compromise", now that they have one, it's not "good enough". I can't help but wonder exactly what their version of "compromise" would have been on this bill.

  • Michele Starkey12/8/2010

    Gotta agree with Nancy. Without the extension of Bush era "tax cuts" - a whole lot of small business owners would be closing up shop - including where my husband works. His boss was ready to throw in the towel. cheers Whip, another good one.

  • L.E. Duncan12/8/2010

    Scotty, the diametrically opposed classes of rich and poor has never been more focused on since Obama has been in office, causing more and more conflict and spinning of the Congressional wheels.

    I agree with your comments regarding the deficit and tax cuts. Very well stated. However, this country needs to do some very deep soul searching and make some deep cuts somewhere. The whole health care circus cost this country millions without ever fixing anything...then poof...we're on to something else.

    Now its raising the retirement age to 69 and cutting off Federal emergency unemployment...

    Instead of making the cuts in places that hurt people the most, there are thousands of Federally funded programs whose budgets could be cut, adjusted or just plain chopped completely.

    We could save a couple of thousand bucks a day if those Congressmen brought their own sack lunch to work...

    ...just sayin'

  • Scotty Starnes12/8/2010

    Continued: benefitted the rich as they're now asking to keep the Bush rates for the poor and middle class. Hypocrisy 101.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.