HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » To send or not to send? I...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:19 PM

To send or not to send? It won't make a bit of difference to Rep. Joe Pitts, since he is about as RW

as they come, but it might make me feel a little better.

So, how do you vote, DU? Feel free to comment on accuracy, tone, grammar, typos, etc.

Your response to my recent email supporting S. 3412, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, was extremely disappointing.

First off, Kurt Hauser's "documentation" does not show what you and he claim it does. Have a look at this chart: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TPRBL9f2fsI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/oAy0Eg_r1dE/s1600/Hauser%2527s_Law_Figure_1.bmp

"Notice the size of his narrow band - its width is over 5% of GDP! Now take a gander at the little table. In tax hike periods, the smallest amount collected was 18.3% of GDP. By contrast, the median collection in tax cut periods is 18.2%; in other words, in over half of the tax cut years, collections were less than the smallest amount ever brought in during the tax hike periods. Furthermore, both the median and average for the two series are a full percent of GDP apart. Hauser is essentially sweeping humongous differences under the table. "
(This and more Hauser debunking here: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html)

As for your statement that, "imposing a tax directed towards those that are investing in our economy is self-defeating," you are either misinformed or, as usual, schilling for the 1%.

Just ask Warren Buffet, who knows a thing or two about investing: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

And if you're going to respond to this with your usual "talking points" without addressing the specific points I've made here, please don't bother. If I want right wing spin, I can always turn to the official propaganda wing of the Republican party--Fox News.


In response to this:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support of S. 3412, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. It was good to hear from you.

As you may know, on July 19, 2012, Sen. Harry Reid introduced S. 3412, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. If enacted, this legislation would extend the 2003 tax cuts through 2013 for individuals earning under $200,000, $225,000 for heads of household, and $250,000 for married couples filing joint returns. On July 25, 2012, by a vote of 51 to 48, the Senate passed S. 3412.

There has been a lot of talk about cutting taxes for the rich. The simple fact is that without Congressional action, taxes would go up for everyone. There are no tax cuts in this bill; it only extends current law. Moreover, Stanford Economics Professor Kurt Hauser has documented how the top tax rate may change, but government revenue remains consistent. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he notes that, "Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19 percent regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92 percent (1952-53) and as low as 28 percent (1988-90)." He makes the case that if we raise taxes now, the government will collect far less revenue than projected. Money available for investment will decrease, and economic growth will stagnate.

In a time when our economy is sluggish, unemployment is high and our national indebtedness exceeds $16 trillion, I understand your desire to increase federal revenues. However, imposing a tax directed towards those that are investing in our economy is self-defeating. We need a tax code that is simpler, eliminates loopholes and keeps taxes low for earners across the board is the best approach for creating an environment that produces jobs.

This debate is about extending existing tax rates, which I support. It is not about cutting taxes for the wealthy: no one is proposing to cut taxes for the wealthy.

Rest assured, I will continue to monitor this issue, and I will keep your views in mind should this or similar legislation come to the House floor for a vote. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please don't hesitate to contact me again in the future regarding any issue that concerns you or your family.

Sincerely,
Joe Pitts
Member of Congress

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Send it as is.
0 (0%)
Send it with the edit(s) I've suggested below.
2 (100%)
Don't send it.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

7 replies, 703 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply To send or not to send? It won't make a bit of difference to Rep. Joe Pitts, since he is about as RW (Original post)
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 OP
elleng Nov 2012 #1
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 #2
elleng Nov 2012 #3
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #4
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 #5
JimGinPA Nov 2012 #6
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 #7

Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:30 PM

1. Send, w edit of

' you are either misinformed or, as usual, schilling for the 1%.'

'You are misinformed.'

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:42 PM

2. Thanks, Ellen. I knew that was a possible point of contention. I will take

your suggestion under consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:49 PM

3. Thanks, Knight.

I tend to avoid unnecessary confrontation, and think 'negotiation' goes better this way: Catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
You need NOT sign Love and Kisses, Knight!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:03 PM

4. Pitts is wrong

Existing law calls for the tax rates to go up for the top earners so any extension is a tax cut for the top earners.......

Did he sign the norquist pledge??
If he did then in my opinion he might be a traitor because he is putting norquist above his Oath of Office and discounting the facts in front of his face ...........

If unemployment is high then the 'job creators' and the people that support them are liars and thieves because they have had over 10 years to create jobs and have not done it.
If they get an extension then they should have no problem signing a guarantee to show how many jobs they are going to produce and create and to let the American people just who the 'job creators are. If they are not going to sign a guarantee then they forgo a tax reduction and accept higher taxes.

just some thoughts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:05 AM

5. The day after the 2010 election my dad posted "Where's the jobs, Boehner?!" on his facebook and

twitter. The Rs always expect miracles from Dems, even with Rs obstructing in every way they can. So, I cracked up when I saw my dad's comments. And, as you say, after 10 years of "job-creating" tax cuts, still few jobs. And they would have probably kept the jobless rate higher if they could have managed.

And, Yes, Pitts signed Grover's pledge.

I seem to have lost what little patience I ever had for the lies and hypocrisy of Pitts and his cronies. Every time he has responded to my messages, it's the same baseless RW BS.

Still, I know ellen's diplomatic approach is probably better, and, considering my last paragraph really ought to be enough venting for me, I'll probably take her advice and cut the earlier high snark before sending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:17 AM

6. Pitts (My Congresscritter) Is One Of The Very Worst

I was hoping we were going to get rid of him this year. At least Strader made it close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimGinPA (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:16 PM

7. I also live in PA's 16th. I'd originally included that, but must have lost it somewhere in

the pre-post edit.

Yes, we did get close to ousting him. We have Lancaster County to thank for the loss. I would have guessed it was the Amish slant, but I had no idea there were so many Independents out there!

Edit: I just noticed that percentage-wise votes for the Independent candidate were actually higher in Chester County, though pretty close throughout the three. So, yeah, I guess I'm back to blaming the Amish.

Then again, maybe not. But if they actually start voting, it will be for the Rs: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/will-amish-voters-be-the-deciding-factor-in-oh-pa/

Check out these results. First the overall, then by county:

Representative in Congress
16th Congressional District Totals

Candidate Votes Percent

PITTS, JOSEPH R. (REP) 19,662 47.7%

STRADER, ARYANNA C. (DEM) 19,377 47.0%

BEDNARSKI, JAMES F. (BFC) 202 0.5%

MURPHY, JOHN A. (IND) 1,964 4.8%


BERKS COUNTY
Candidate Votes Percent

PITTS, JOSEPH R. (REP) 10,000 29.8%

STRADER, ARYANNA C. (DEM) 21,742 64.9%

BEDNARSKI, JAMES F. (BFC) 390 1.2%

MURPHY, JOHN A. (IND) 1,376 4.1%


CHESTER COUNTY
Candidate Votes Percent

PITTS, JOSEPH R. (REP) 19,662 47.7%

STRADER, ARYANNA C. (DEM) 19,377 47.0%

BEDNARSKI, JAMES F. (BFC) 202 0.5%

MURPHY, JOHN A. (IND) 1,964 4.8%


LANCASTER COUNTY
Candidate Votes Percent

PITTS, JOSEPH R. (REP) 126,530 60.2%

STRADER, ARYANNA C. (DEM) 70,066 33.4%

BEDNARSKI, JAMES F. (BFC) 4,562 2.2%

MURPHY, JOHN A. (IND) 8,910 4.2%


http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=15&ElectionID=53&OfficeID=11&DistrictID=16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread