No reliable sources other than the House Representative's election blog. If you read the blog comment, you'll see a bunch of Republicans coming out of the woodworks railing against Democrats because of this supposed tax increase.

It is intellectual dishonesty for a House Representative to make a statement such as that without any sources.

The last house session vote was on the FISA bill: Floor Summary

Good discussion on the topic.

I'd just like to note that you most likely find much info on this for awhile. The tax increases are contained in the budget the House passed. Unless someone is willing to wade through the entire document--in some cases, line-by-line--they will not soon be apparent.

The Congressman was willing to do that. There will be others; some in the media no doubt, will be tipped on exactly where to look. Otherwise, they would never find it.

Republican or Democrat, few Americans relish the idea of losing any additional portions of their income to higher taxes.

The House Democrats come under fire now because they are in charge. The Republicans got scorched good --in many cases, including my own--for acting like the Democrats are now. They paid the price of loss of House control.

R or D--it doesn't matter to most people when their tax bill goes up.

JuGgErNoT said:Didn't mean for it to be a repub or dem argument...but to make FW's aware of impending lighter wallets and prepare to "go underground" with your cheese...sorry if you I sounded political...If you can't see how your title, "Democrat House Passes Largest Tax Hike in History before Recess" is political, then it's obvious you're one of the many who are easily swayed by political rhetoric. Also, I'm bothered by your telling people to go "underground" with their income. This would just increase the burden on the honest tax-payers.

I'm a news junkie and if the "largest tax hike in history" had passed, I would have heard about it. I did a google news search and nothing of note came up. I could find no house resolution - the bills begin with "HR". Also, don't forget that the president has veto power.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but some of us are mature enough to understand that it's a necessity. Some politicians come in and woo voters with statements like, "no new taxes" and people swoon and vote for these clowns. When the country is in a strong enough position, they can get away with lowering taxes and borrowing against the future. Sometimes, however, that position is untenable and they realize that the nation eventually has to pay its obligations. They hope to push it off long enough so that the next leader will have to deal with the mess, but not all are so lucky.

It comes down to one basic idea: the government must collect enough revenue to cover its expenses.

Should taxes be at 0% or 100%? Refer to the Laffer curve for a better explanation.

This happened a couple weeks back (article about it here). Congress passed budget plans which are nonbinding (so no direct impact out of this) and the House plan allows all of Bush's tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled when they were originally passed. The Senate version called for extending some of the tax cuts, though not all. Some pertinent quotes:
The underlying House and Senate Democratic federal budget plans for 2009, though nonbinding, drew blasts from Republicans for allowing some or all of Bush’s tax cuts to die in about three years.

The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government’s ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush’s tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled.

The Senate passed a companion plan by a 51-44 vote. It endorsed extending $340 billion of Bush’s tax cuts but balked at continuing all of them. The competing versions head to talks in which the House is all but certain to accept the Senate’s position endorsing tax cuts for the working poor, married couples, people with children and for those inheriting large estates.
Budget plans are nonbinding, but they highlight the difficult choices on taxes and spending facing the next president and Congress. Binding votes on the expiring Bush tax cuts will be left to his successor and the Congress that’s elected in November.
Congress’ annual budget debate involves a nonbinding resolution that sets the stage for later bills affecting taxes, benefit programs such as Medicare and the annual appropriations bills. Unless such follow-up legislation is passed, however, the budget debate has little real effect and is mostly about making statements about party priorities.
"Largest Tax Hike in History" vs "allowing the sunset provisions in the original law to run it's course as originally written" is a matter of political spin. So nothing to worry about now, just a potential indicator that things will change somehow to some degree at some point and there's disagreement on how much. But is that really news to anyone?

The government needs to have enough taxes to pay its bills. Democrats want to spend money on shoring up the masses, and the current crop of Republicans want to spend money on everything as long as it is not on shoring up the masses. The odd thing is that the new crop of right wing Republicans seem to spend more than Democrats. I hope we get some left wing, or centrist Republicans soon. I say Americans should get taxed what America spends, and that America should live within its means.

*Shrug*

I guess we are taxed in a way though inflation. The odd thing is that inflation hurts the poor more than the rich, I would think. Stock prices, I would imagine, would be more stable than property, and cash when inflation hits as folks in other countries would buy US stock, and shore it up.

chimeer said: I wish there were more socially liberal and fiscally conservative politicians (regardless of party affiliation).
There is one, he's running for President and no one votes for him.

JuGgErNoT,

How will this information help me save money or make better investments?

I've read that highly political financial advisors tend to do worse than average, maybe because so many of them recommend doomsday portfolios (like lots of commodities).