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.
What does “in the pockets of the rich” mean? The only way their money can stay out of the market is if they buried it in the ground.
The money will be invested, which means it will “go directly into the economy.”
337 – Liberty Loser
>>Sigh. How soon people forget.
Well, you’re certainly not doing anything to help our “memory”. You post a google search with a bunch of hits on ambiguous comments on things Joe Biden may or may not have said.
I said it once, I’ll say it again: If you (or your ventriloquist’s dummy Paddy-RAMBO) have anything to back up the notion that Obama is going to raise taxes on people making over $75K (or even over $150K), then put up. Or STFU.
Oh look at the republipukes just giddy of even a hint of liberal remorse. Sorry, but despite Uncle Dave’s over analysis and anticipation, Obama isn’t even president yet!
Yes, we are still being run by a rudderless government. Everything that can go wrong has and we have twenty some odd days. I suppose a nuclear power plant accident can top off the Bush era.
I know one thing, and so does everyone here! Giving money to the rich is a bust!
A lot of dummies here gave a pass on the trillion(s) given to Wall street; but, have sever philosophical heart burn and vicious anger when million(s) are given to the poor to keep them in their homes.
When in the history of the country have the poor almost bankrupt the country? Was it in Oct 1929, Sept 1968 …
If you leave your door unlocked and a free money sign on the front, who do you blame when it’s gone?
All you conservative philosopher blowhards have done more to damage and bankrupt this country then any other group in the history of this country. Your blind believe in Reagan is what is, if not almost bankrupting U.S. now.
With Bush, there continues to be a brain drain. Many of the worlds brightest people who would study and start new business in U.S.A are now preferring to study outside the U.S.A. Does any know how many foreigner have started billion dollar companies in U.S.A.
How is a consumer driven economy to recover if overall wages are going down, mfg jobs are moving overseas and median home prices are 8X the country’s median income.
I still don’t understand how people can expect the median home price to stabilize when median wages are declining.
Business says it can’t make a wall street style profit paying American wages. I guess then we can’t have a consumer driven economy then!
If we keep loosing mfg jobs over seas, this country is doomed. Who’s going to buy Starbucks coffee on a Mc-salery.
Who was it that warned us of the “giant sucking sound” of jobs moving out of the country, and who wanted to reform GM?
What is important here is to note that 1) Obama, like all craven politicians, said what he needed to get elected, then does what he and his buddies want to help themselves. Ya, ‘change.’ Looks like you guys got ‘fooled again.’ Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss. Will y’all ever learn? I doubt it.
Additionally, rather than “debunks the myth that tax cuts for the rich more than “pay for themselves” by fueling economic growth.”, if you read the analysis, all it says is that tax cuts with no spending cuts do nothing for growth. Real conservatives have been saying THAT for years.
#36,
You forgot to add the extremely low corporate tax rate — nearly 10 pts lower than here.
However,
High Unemployment (~20%) though the “official” number is around 6%.
http://tinyurl.com/6sjafz
Over 50% of the GDP is spent by the government (probably on the unemployed). Some sites put it closer to 60% but I think they had an axe to grind.
Note, the social-democrats have recently been removed from office and the new government is reducing taxes everywhere to get people back into the workforce instead of living off the social programs.
They rank 27th in the world on the economic index. The US is 4th. Interesting site.
http://tinyurl.com/axble8
Inflexible employment regulations hinder overall productivity growth and employment opportunities. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is high, and dismissing a redundant employee is costly and burdensome. Rigid regulations have contributed to slow job creation.
#41, Poison,
That link was exactly what you asked for:
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+
So, Obamessiah’s right hand man’s comments don’t constitute the President-Elect’s plan?
However, since you don’t seem to want to look for any cracks in his armor yourself, here is one of the links from that page.
http://tinyurl.com/6f8yla
“Here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year.” His own words.
Let’s see, if two people work and each makes $100,000 that comes to $200,000. Wow!
Click on some of the other links to find similar statements.
Or STFU.
I see you still find easy to get in someone’s face when you can’t see it?
#48 bobbo
>>Irrelevant… simple minded?
I suspect my insightful view is only gibberish because you don’t have the capacity to understand.
#46 – Liberty Loser
>>You forgot to add the extremely low corporate
>>tax rate — nearly 10 pts lower than here.
Huh? The US corporate tax rate is from 15% to 39%, which puts Sweden’s corporate tax rate (28%) just about smack dab in the middle.
>>High Unemployment (~20%) though the
>>“official” number is around 6%.
>>They rank 27th in the world on the economic
>>index. The US is 4th. Interesting site.
Actually, the US is FIFTH. Does part of the “liberty” you “love” include the fudging of statistics?
The countries above the US on this “freedom index” are, in order, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. Interesting index indeed. You might consider moving to Singapore or Hong Kong in pursuit of the “liberty” you “love” so dearly.
Actually, the “official” number is 5.2%, compared to the US “official” number of 5.1%.
Sure, when you add in all the disabled, the retired, the students, and everybody else you can think of who’s not working 9 to 5, the number goes up. I notice your link didn’t apply the same “adjustment” to the US figures. Gee, I wonder why??
>>Inflexible employment regulations hinder
>>overall productivity growth and employment
>>opportunities.
Yeah, darned meddlers. If we could just get rid of those pesky child labor laws, we could have sweatshop labor, just like Singapore and Hong Kong!!
#49–Liberty==close but no cigar. Cutting taxes below 200K does not say where raising taxes start. You might want to “assume” taxes are increased over 200K but you provide no link for that.
So rather than assumptions, we have many statements that taxes increase at $250K.
Better than Paddy-O==still missing the mark.
#49 – Liberty Loser
>>That link was exactly what you asked for:
Uh, no, it wasn’t. It was a link to the results of a search using The Google, with 33,500 results. I looked at a couple of them (you should have done the same), and they didn’t support your contention.
>>However, since you don’t seem to want to look
>>for any cracks in his armor yourself, here is
>>one of the links from that page.
You’re right. I’m not willing to spend my Sunday afternoon digging through 33,500 web sites looking for something that will prove your asinine contention.
As to the link you FINALLY provided: sorry. That doesn’t support your asinine contention either. If you don’t know the difference between “tax cuts”, “tax hikes”, and “no change in taxes”, I’m not going to spell it out for you.
And I am STILL waiting for a link that mentions $75K in any context at all. Or are you saying that you’re not in charge of your ventriloquist’s dummy, Paddy-RAMBO? HAW!!
>>I see you still find easy to get in someone’s
>>face when you can’t see it?
I have a feeling it would be easy to get in your face if you were sitting on my lap, son. I’ve met your kind before.
Eat the RICH! Then we all will be poor!!!
#64 Mister Mustard
>>Success was not the goal. Survival was.
One man’s goal is another man’s euphemism.
>>…requiring the extremely wealthy to pull their own weight.
Class warfare is never the answer. Doesn’t it make more sense to help the poor up instead of bring the rich down?
I always wonder something when I see these debates going back and forth. I know my neo-lib friends on this board hate the rich with a passion, and love to day “the rich need to pull their own weight”, and “the rich don’t need the money”. My question is it wrong to take a “rich” persons money? Is it 25%, 50%, 70%?
At what percentage are the rich “pulling their weight”?
#65 – ‘tempt
>>Doesn’t it make more sense to help the poor
>>up instead of bring the rich down?
Sure. I doubt that any of the “rich” are going to be seriously inconvenienced by anything Obama has in store.
#68 – ‘dro
>>those waking up being the newly shocked Obama
>>supporters
I don’t know any newly shocked Obama supporters, ‘dro, do you? All the supporters of Obama that I know are happy as clams.
The only shocked ones around here are going to be the Obamaphobics who predict 8 years of Armageddon once the President-Elect finally takes office, only to find out that all their wailing and gnashing of teeth was for naught.
#69, Don’t waste your time. What you might get is the guy using his beloved 4 letter signature, which he has already used at least once on this blog post
I know. Notice he just asked a wrinkly old man to sit on his lap. Scary.
Sigh. Even with proof staring them in their faces, they still seem to believe things are going to change. Sad, really.
#56, And I am STILL waiting for a link that mentions $75K in any context at all.
Actually, you asked for $150,000, too, which those links did.
Now you say it’s just $75,000? Get your balls out of your purse and quit changing your mind.
-please…the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is headed by that Country destroyer, -The World Bank..this null and voids the dribble coming out of their arses… half the directors there are the whose who-who of scheming globalist destroyers..
get an article with some credibility please.
-s
I might be tempted to reduce or eliminate as much tax on business as I can because I want business to continue to make a profit to provide jobs and wages.
This goes double because taxing a business in the US making some item and not taxing imports of the item is punishing a company for not outsourcing.
You views may vary.
However anybod who thinks they’re going to have a job long if their company doesn’t make a profit is nuts.
#72 – Liberty Loser
>>Actually, you asked for $150,000, too, which
>those links did.
Uh, no they didn’t. One was a link to 33,500 other links, the other was a link to a page that said people making under $200,000 would get a tax CUT. No mention of who would get a tax INCREASE on that page, but it’s not unreasonable to infer that it would be those making over $250,000.
I can see why you’re so hesitant to provide any links to pages containing real data; none of them support your asinine contention.
>>Now you say it’s just $75,000? Get your
>>balls out of your purse and quit changing
>>your mind.
Quit playing pocket pool and start paying attention to what your ventriloquist’s dummy Paddy-RAMBO is saying, won’t you? He said, and I quote:
“Memory serves you wrong. Under Omama’s plan, taxes on those making $75,000/year will go up in 2010.”
I’m still waiting for a link, any link, that says those making over $75,000/year will see tax increases in 2010.
>>Sigh. Even with proof staring them in their
>>faces, they still seem to believe things are
>>going to change.
All you have to do to change everyone’s mind is to provide some of that proof (and not in the form of links to thousands of other links, or links to pages that DO NO SUPPORT what you’re saying.
Pony up, or STFU.
Since my community has benifeted from people moving here seeking lower costs of living I don’t care if NY soaks the rich or not. Lot of people moving to Mexico for the same reason.
“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.”
How vocal were you as we amassed 7 trillion in debt during the last 7 years?
#77 – ‘dro
When you have something that will shake my belief, let me know. Otherwise, please STFU.
TIA.
Poison,
All you have to do to change everyone’s mind is to provide some of that proof (and not in the form of links to thousands of other links, or links to pages that DO NO SUPPORT what you’re saying.
Of course they don’t support your world view. Your world view is Fantasy Land.
I give you links, you say they don’t support the truth.
I point out just one of the links that does and you change the question.
Admit it. You’re at a loss as to why Obamessiah is changing his tune. Come on. It’s ok to admit you’re wrong.
Not to douse part of this flame war but regarding the article,
> the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are
> “likely to reduce, not increase,
> national income in the long term”
> because of their effect in
> swelling the deficit.
The flaw here is that it assumes that the government some how has a revenue problem. It does not. It has a spending problem. Wild out of control spending, by the Republican Congress mostly, contributed WAY more than a reduced rate of increase of tax revenue. It also begs the question of whether we want a rate of increase of tax revenue that is beyond the inflation rate. If Congress had put the money towards the deficit instead blowing it and then some, we’d be in much better shape.
> 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
The problem here is that this is a HUGE “if”. Frankly, I have *zero* confidence that the government will spend additional tax revenue wisely (Bailout anyone?) Furthermore, if the deficit is such a national income killer, why would you not propose to put that money to reducing the deficit?
The core question with respect to tax increases is whether it will increase tax revenue over a three to five year stretch. If increasing taxes on the rich will increase tax revenue over that time period, then it makes sense to raise taxes. However, most liberals want to increase taxes on the rich even if it meant lower tax revenue.
One of the biggest problems with the tax code is that it is ignorant of cost of living and in the definition of “rich”. $250K in Kansas is not the same as $250K in NYC. IMO, “rich” should be those whose income in the given tax year is in the top 1% bracket for the previous year. That way it is always adjusting and it is clear that only a minority of the populace is being affected.
#82, Thomas,
As usual, you take a reasoned approach and I appreciate that and applaud it. Now that doesn’t mean I agree, only I tip my hat because you actually make a comprehensible argument.
Only using a tax cut or another “stimulus” check won’t do anything. There needs to be a radical change in our whole approach to trade. If we import from a country they should not be allowed to enslave their workers, they should pay a reasonable wage, health and safety, and working conditions.
We must reform our health care system. Not put a band aid on it, REFORM it. That includes removing the profit in people being sick and promoting preventative medicine.
We must stop giving tax breaks and incentives for companies to locate in certain communities.
And, we have to stop our manufacturing from moving off shore with OUR tax breaks.
#81 – Liberty Loser
>>Of course they don’t support your world
>>view. Your world view is Fantasy Land.
They sure don’t support YOUR world view. They’re either irrelevant, or they support mine.
>>I give you links, you say they don’t support
>>the truth.
You gave ONE link, and I didn’t say it didn’t support the truth (although the catty sniping from the righter trying to spin-doctor what Obama actually said was a little lame). I said it didn’t support what you said it did.
>>I point out just one of the links that does
>>and you change the question.
The link you pointed out didn’t support what you claimed (that Obama had changed his tune). It said that everyone making less than $200,000/yr was going to get a tax break. If you think it said something different (in particular, that he is going to RAISE taxes on anyone making $150K/yr or more), please quote the text. I read it twice, and it’s eluding me.
>>Admit it. You’re at a loss as to why
>>Obamessiah is changing his tune.
One last time, Loser. Show me where Obama has changed his tune. I double dog dare ya. If you can’t, STFU, and stop wasting my time with irrelevant links and links that support exactly what I’ve been saying (and Obama has been saying) all along.
#83, I agree with your assessment of #82.
I would offer some counters or modifications or enhancements to your suggestions, however.
Only using a tax cut or another “stimulus” check won’t do anything.
There is a really good book out called “Downsizing the Federal Government” by Chris Edwards. He has many pages of many tables describing where we could reduce the government by nearly 25%, mostly by eliminating waste. I must read for everyone. Note he bashes the current administration quite severely.
Cutting taxes and not reducing the spending is asinine.
If we import from a country they should not be allowed to enslave their workers, they should pay a reasonable wage, health and safety, and working conditions.
Instead of forcing the other countries to do things our way, why not put stickers on all products from said countries (“Made in China by Slave Labor” or some such). Then the buyer can be informed as to why those pencils cost a nickel and not a dime.
We must reform our health care system. Not put a band aid on it, REFORM it. That includes removing the profit in people being sick and promoting preventative medicine.
If you can figure out a way to do that, I’ll vote for you for president. However, until you find someone willing to work at poverty level AND be a doctor, I think this is a pipe dream.
That said, in the olden days in China, the village doctor only got paid when everyone was healthy. When someone got sick, he stopped getting paid. Of course, the villages were pretty small back then. Tai Chi sprang from such beginnings.
We must stop giving tax breaks and incentives for companies to locate in certain communities.
Agreed. Let them move where they want. Of course, zoning laws are notoriously special interest controlled so I am not sure how you are going to accomplish that.
One last time, Loser. Show me where Obama has changed his tune. I double dog dare ya. If you can’t, STFU, and stop wasting my time with irrelevant links and links that support exactly what I’ve been saying (and Obama has been saying) all along.
I’ve proven my point. If you feel compelled to keep arguing, I can’t help that. You do have a choice to NOT read my posts. It’s a free country, at least for three more weeks.