During the Democratic primary campaign, Barack Obama, along with all of his Democratic contenders, promised a swift repeal of these tax cuts. A rollback of tax cuts benefiting only corporations and the wealthiest individuals was supposed to provide the financing for Obama’s policy proposals, from education and health care to infrastructure and green energy. But by September, the Democratic nominee was already backpedaling on his pledge, and within three weeks of his election, Obama’s economic advisors confirmed that, after all, the new president might just let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2011, rather than eliminating them two years earlier. The decision is based on the premise that it is unwise—in economic as well as political terms—to raise taxes during a recession, since lower taxes stimulate the economy.
At the same time, New York’s Democratic governor David Patterson has refused to consider instituting a temporary “millionaire’s tax” to address his state’s desperate financial needs, choosing instead to slash vital social programs. Patterson claims that such a tax will drive businesses and wealthy individuals out of New York and further depress the economy. (This despite billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s declaration that among his rich friends, he’d “never heard one person say ‘I’m going to move out of the city because of taxes.’”)
But an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, released earlier this year, debunks the myth that tax cuts for the rich more than “pay for themselves” by fueling economic growth.
[…]
Especially during a recession, if we put more money in the pockets of the rich, it is likely to stay right there—in their pockets. On the other hand, if we put more money in the hands of low- and middle-income workers through tax cuts, and in the hands of the poor and unemployed through increases in government programs (food stamps, TANF, unemployment benefits), that money is virtually guaranteed to go directly into the economy, since its recipients have no choice but to spend it on their basic needs—food, clothing, gasoline, doctor’s bills.
And for those righties who think we leftist, pinko editors here at DU will be soft on Obama, I, for one, plan some ass nailing to walls when promises start getting broken. That makes us even more cranky.
When he appealed to such a broad group of people who individually mapped all of their hopes to his promise, there is bound to be numerous disappointments.
He is a politician after all.
This is all because John lost a bet saying that the republican dude would win.
One problem with your article. Define “rich”.
#3 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>One problem with your article. Define “rich”.
Did you sleep through the 2-year campaign season, Paddy-RAMBO? Even Joe the “plumber” knows how “rich” is defined in this context.
My first worry about Obama was when he said more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.
My second worry was when he said there would be no change to his intended spending program except perhaps to slow it down.
Two strikes in my book. One more and I will move him to the “typical Washington Pol” category and wait for the next messiah. Breaking his tax pledge would do it.
Nice to see all the cordless crystal balls are already functioning. Because nothing can happen until after Inauguration Day. Bush still has another couple weeks to keep your balls warm.
I think it’s worth differentiating between skepticism and sophistry.
# 5 bobbo said, “Two strikes in my book. One more and I will move him to the “typical Washington Pol” category”
Don’t blame him. NOBODY moves up so fast through the Chicago political machine without issuing TONS of IOU’s. Those start coming due on Jan 20…
From the article: And tax cuts financed by deficit spending—as they were under Bush, and undoubtedly will continue to be under Obama—are especially harmful.
This is the key piece of the entire article, IMO. If you are going to reduce taxes, you need to reduce your spending as well. That would be like buying a new boat after you’ve been laid off. Stupid.
This is what killed the Republican party starting in late 90s.
#6–god==How would you characterize what you provided? Use the whole dictionary and get back to us.
#8–Liberty==very insightful. How can you understand this key piece of reality and still be as rah-rah over Bush as you have been???
In case it has slipped anyone’s mind, politicians are rich. To believe that they will contribute more of their personal wealth is as Styx would say… Fooling Yourself.
Tax cuts for all and a decrease in government spending is the tried and true method to a good economy.
#10 – ‘tempt
>>In case it has slipped anyone’s mind,
>>politicians are rich.
Joe Biden isn’t rich.
#11–Pedro==typical fantacist Repuglican rich-boy wanna be. You don’t make coffee. If you did, you would have a chance.
You probably don’t even grow the beans==just pick them. Or maybe you just groom the donkey?
((Cruel, but you left the door open and posted a 12 foot neon sign.))
#13–Kev==you can type, so I assume you can read. Read “anything” to inform yourself as to the current crises and its causes: all greedy stupid rich people leveraging their assets.
Or do you think it is poor people that lose $50Million in a credit swap/default exchange?
#12 Mister Mustard
>>Joe Biden isn’t rich.
Joe’s wealth may not meet the level of Ted “the swimmer” Kennedy, but his hand is deep into the taxpayer cookie jar.
#13: “this is NOT a political blog”
Wrong. It is anything John and us editors want it to be.
# 12 Mister Mustard said, “Joe Biden isn’t rich.”
Actually, per Omama’s proposed tax policy, he is. Anyone making over $150k/year is “rich”…
# 17 Uncle Dave said, “Wrong. It is anything John and us editors want it to be.”
So, back on topic. What’s is your definition of “rich”. What annual income level do you peg it at?
#19–Paddy-O==have you been on the down low with Lyin Mike again?
If memory serves, the Obama plan was to increase taxes on those making $250K per year. I challenge you to link otherwise.
Do you do this on purpose, spite, or wishful thinking?
# 21 bobbo said, “If memory serves, the Obama plan was to increase taxes on those making $250K per year. I challenge you to link otherwise.”
Memory serves you wrong. Under Omama’s plan, taxes on those making $75,000/year will go up in 2010.
You need to actually read & listen to him…
#20 Paddy-O
>>What’s is your definition of “rich”.
In government speak, the definition pretty much applies to anyone who has a job and is a consumer.
#20: What exactly makes you think my definition means anything? It’s whatever figure whoever is in charge wants it to be to further whatever political, social, economic, etc agenda they are pushing at the time and is subject to change.
Flat tax is still the best option. It is crazy to penalize people for being productive and reward people for not producing. No, we shouldn’t penalize the poor, but exemptions or partial exemptions for those below poverty level combined with a flat rate for those who produce is the fairest way. I am not rich, I don’t know what the definition of rich is, but I do not want to be penalized through taxes when I am able to make more than I do now, or when I make more than the average citizen (if and when that happens).
#22–Paddy-O==I “BELIEVE YOU”. Now just post a link and lets get down to business. I will search this factoid out, but you should have this at your fingertips.
I’ll wait.
#27–Thank you Pedro. It was meant in good fun. Still—you don’t “make” coffee do you? Exporting raw goods is the role of a colony. USA exports way to much to the Orient for their value added return. The end of cheap oil should stop the economic advantage of sending trees to China to be returned as furniture cheaper than we can do it ourselves.
Shocking what economies of scale ((big cargo ships, cheap oil in that context)).
“Patterson claims that such a tax will drive businesses and wealthy individuals out of New York and further depress the economy. (This despite billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s declaration that among his rich friends, he’d “never heard one person say ‘I’m going to move out of the city because of taxes.’”)” – what rich friends say to Bloomberg doesn’t count (and I am glad Paterson understands that). Recent British example of raising tax “for the rich” have had measurable result: 100 time more capital moved out of the country on the announcement compared to the revenue intended to be raised by such move. Clear experimental result.
#19 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Actually, per Omama’s proposed tax policy, he
>>is. Anyone making over $150k/year is “rich”…
OK, RAMBO. Let’s see the proof on that one.
>>Memory serves you wrong. Under Omama’s plan,
>>taxes on those making $75,000/year will go up
>>in 2010.
Hey, I thought it was $250K, then you said $150K. Now you’re saying $75K.
Jesus, you flip-flop more than Bush!!!
Please provide a link for ANY number under $250K, preferably one that states the President-Elect’s plan to raise taxes on those making $75K+ or $150K+
#29 – dusanmal
>>Recent British example of raising tax “for
>>the rich” have had measurable result: 100
>>time more capital moved out of the country on
>>the announcement compared to the revenue
>>intended to be raised by such move.
WTF are you talking about? Personal income taxes “for the rich” have not gone up in Britain. Link please.
And if, in the likely event that this statement is unadulterated bullshit, please explain wtf “100 time more capital moved out of the country..compared to the revenue intended to be raised by such more” means.
# 25 Uncle Dave said, “#20: What exactly makes you think my definition means anything? ”
“showing tax cuts for the rich don’t help the economy, he may still do it.”
Well, I thought that since you wrote something you had something in mind. I am interested in your thoughts on this.
#15, you are correct, the blame should be on not only the people who got loans they can’t afford, but on the people who encouraged them to get those loans, the liberal congress. Even Bill Clinton himself said that he tried to control the more left wing nut jobs trying to give everyone loans, but he was unable to do anything this time. Please excuse any spelling errors, been up all night dealing with the horror that is iTunes.
Ass nailing to walls wastes so much usable wall space better suited for pretty pictures.
#30, Sigh. How soon people forget.
http://tinyurl.com/8adens