Shocker: House Republicans vote against extension of middle class tax cuts

From the files of, “this should surprise absolutely no one” comes news Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with a smattering of Democrats) voted against extending the Bush tax cuts for lower and middle class Americans. The plan to extend the tax cuts for lower and middle class Americans had already been passed by the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate, but instead of voting to pass the tax cut legislation for President Obama’s signature, House Republicans passed their own plan that also extends tax hefty tax cuts to the top 1% of American wage earners, because apparently Republicans believe those 400 millionaires and billionaires who hold more combined wealth (cash, stock and property) than the assets of 155 million Americans combined need a tax break far more than lower income and middle class Americans.



Related Articles

6 thoughts on “Shocker: House Republicans vote against extension of middle class tax cuts

  1. … thereby causing Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine to turn in their graves…

    being that they all advocated some sort of progressive taxation, the latter 3 in order to prevent the establishment of a permanent ruling class with limitless power to control the government, the former as a moral principle necessary for a moral society…

    1. Yeah, T. Paine was a big fan of progressive taxation, and considering how big a hero he is to some conservatives, you’d think they’d be a little more on board with the idea of progressive taxation.

      1. I doubt any of them would even support the concept of the income tax to begin with!

        1. Of course they did, FMSN. They all understood taxation of property to be taxation of wealth… of income. Not only did they consider it appropriate, but they also regarded it as essential and foundational for those with the most wealth to contribute the most in taxes. Jefferson considered taxing only the wealthy as appropriate. Benjamin Franklin considered any wealth beyond that to satisfy personal necessity subject to the public pool of wealth. Paine was very much aligned with Franklin’s view of a public pool of wealth to benefit the community at large. Smith felt it a moral bound duty in a civilized society for the rich to contribute to the needs of the poor. Paine, Jefferson, and Smith all agreed with that notion – the idea that he who derives most from society should return the most to society – for public improvement and to “be their brothers” keeper. All prioritized public good over private wealth.

          Why? One of their chief concerns for maintaining a free society was putting checks on wealth consolidation and the concentration of power. Jefferson wrestled over the inequity of property ownership, and it was a question I don’t think he ever truly resolved. He didn’t think parcelling it out equally was a solution, but he also didn’t think uneven distribution of property was proper either. Yet, the system of progressive taxation and attendance to the public good did work well for the early Republic – in its first 40 years. And, at least in the North.

          As to the taxation of currency – the product of labor of non-landowners – that is an interesting question because that shift is predicated on the rise of industry and a number of factors that I think Jefferson, in particular, would have vehemently opposed.

  2. How is voting to extend tax cuts for everyone voting against tax cuts for the middle class?

    1. You have to put it in terms they can understand. Let’s say there was a bill that provided only SOME people with the means to kill their children. Pro-abortion advocates would most certainly vote against it because, heck, everyone deserves the right to kill babies and they would hold out for a bill that gives it to everyone just the same. However, if they voted against the bill that only provided SOME with that privilege, could we rightly call them PRO LIFE? Same thing here.

Comments are closed.