The Coming Tax Cut Showdown

When the president is away, White House aides do not get to play—especially after President Obama took a “shellacking” by the American people. And so as President Obama tours Asia—repeating parts of a post-drubbing tour that Bill Clinton embarked on in 1994–they have been plotting various scenarios for the great showdown that approaches next week: the expiration of George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

The only thing certain is that no one is sure just what will happen. Republicans in both the House and the Senate, along with most of the business lobby, have staked out a clear position: Extend all of the tax cuts.

President Obama, by contrast, has long maintained that he wanted to permanently extend all of the tax cuts, with the exception of those cuts for couples who make more than $250,000, which he feels should rise to pre-2001 levels, a move that would reduce the deficit by about $700 million over ten years. “Why would we borrow money on policies that won’t help the economy and help people who don’t need help?” he asked rhetorically in a September press conference.

After the midterm elections, however, he all but admitted that this was not a tenable position in the current political climate. Not only are Republicans apparently united against him, but several members of the Senate Democratic caucus, including Virginia’s Jim Webb and Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman, have waivered. Add to that a new Republican senator from Illinois, who will be seated this year, and a new West Virginia Democrat, Joe Manchin, who cannot be counted on to vote with the president, and it is clear that President Obama had to shift strategy.

“With respect to the tax cut issue, my goal is to make sure that we don’t have a huge spike in taxes for middle-class families,” the president said in a press conference last week. “So my goal is to sit down with Speaker-elect Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Harry and Nancy sometime in the next few weeks and see where we can move forward in a way that, first of all, does no harm.”

So where will the two sides meet? There are essentially three options: A temporary extension of the tax brackets for all taxpayers, a re-jiggering of the tax bracket structure to create a new very high income level, or doing nothing and letting the cuts expire. The last option would punish lower income taxpayers, whom neither party wants to hurt, comically demonstrating the total ineptness of Washington and probably hurting the public image of both Democrats and Republicans. The idea for a new tax bracket, which has been floated most recently by the Urban Institute, is unlikely to gain much traction in the short term, since it would weaken future Republican negotiations on taxation by putting greater distance between the very wealthy and everyone else.

So the most likely outcome is an extension. But for how long? If they extend it just a few months, both parties could restart the showdown next year, with a new Congress. If they extend it all a full year, the showdown could happen in regular Congressional order, with committee hearings and the like, and possibly be part of a bigger rethinking of the tax code. If they extend it all two years, then it becomes a presidential election year issue. If they extend it all three years, then it all gets punted to the next president.

What can be expected is a whole lot of political theater whatever the outcome. This is an issue that neatly divides the bases of the Democratic and Republican parties. It will also serve as an early test of negotiating heft. Both Democrats and Republicans are now competing for the mantle of the party of reasonable, effective, sober governance. And the outcome of this early battle is likely to set the stage for the bigger fights to come next year.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://milascurtains.wordpress.com milascurtains

    I want to hear Bill Gates on this one.
    I hope – he will call to refuse tax cuts for his part of Society.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Since most of the money given to the middle class will likely be spent one can justify them as a means of stimulating demand. The rich, on the other hand, will probably bank their tax cut, offering little good to the economy and adding to the size of the deficit. However, generally speaking, it is not a good idea to raise taxes in the middle of a terrible recession. A possible compromise for the rich is to let the useless taxes expire and replace them with tax credits directly related to employment. These ought to be very generous credits so as to encourage businesses to take advantage of them.

    The other thing missing from this recovery is spending on infrastructure. I heard one of the leaders of the Tea Party claim the other day they would get behind infrastructure spending. Perhaps there is a deal to be made around tax credits, infrastructure and tax cuts for the middle class that satisfies everyone?

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Can we please get some accurate phrasing here?

    You say, “President Obama, by contrast, has long maintained that he wanted to permanently extend all of the tax cuts, with the exception of those cuts for couples who make more than $250,000, which he feels should rise to pre-2001 levels…”

    But this is not really true. Couples who make over $250,000 will still get the benefit of lower than 2001 level tax rates for their income up to $250,000. The only thing Obama doesn’t favor is keeping the rates lower for money earned from 250,000.01 on up. The way you’ve written it makes it sound like every couple making less than a quarter million will pay the post 2001 and 2003 tax rates and everyone making more will pay 90s rates. Not true. Under Obama’s plan, a couple making a quarter million will still get substantial tax savings compared to a couple in the same situation in 1997.

    This is not a technical distinction. A substantial portion of the 2001-2010 tax rates will be preserved for every American. When the media phrases it as “tax cuts for everyone except couples making over $250,000″ it paints a misleading picture of what’s going on.

  • freeinpa

    He could have refused them for the past years, if he chose.

  • nicholaslue

    shouldn’t it be 700 BILLION, not 700 Million as stated in the article?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    What everyone forgets is that because of the design of the Reconcilliation bill that implermented the tax cuts in the first place, the default ‘do-nothing’ position is for ALL the tax cuts to expire. This puts Obama in a stronger position than anyone is acknowleging. The fact that taxes are currently as low as they’ve been in my lifetime suggests that a ‘good story’ can last significantly longer than the truth it describes.

    Leave it to Time to continue to spin “good stories”

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    I had actually forgotten that, but you’re right. Technically, this was all the Republican’s plan. If we’re to take their legislative intentions literally and honestly then it’s the Republicans who believed the best thing for America would be for these cuts to expire. These are, in fact, the Bush Expirations.

  • rohalz

    If tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% are so good, why were so many jobs lost in this near-depression? Clearly tax cuts should be made permanent for the bottom 99%, and new, higher tax rates should be passed on to the top 1%.

    The US currently has that top 1% accounting for (not earning) in excess 0f 25% of total income. That’s rediculous! That disparity makes the US similar to third world dictatorships, and the trend is a growth of that disparity. If it is allowed to continue, it will ruin the country and/or lead to a revolution.

    In particular, the hedge fund managers, investment bankers, insurance executives, athletes, actors, and ceos in general need to pay much higher taxes, say 90% as the top income group did during the Eisenhower years. The economy must be brought into balance for a real recovery to occur.

  • http://147cad.wordpress.com 147cad

    Why don’t we have a president who has a backbone. Obama is a spineless wonder and panders/grovels to the Republicans whenever given the chance. I expect he will give in to them once again on this issue of an extension of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. I am a member of the Democratic party, but am ashamed that this Democratic president just will not “man up” to the Republicans. It just disgusts me.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    He is about to fold on getting out of Afghanistan as well.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    The only thing certain is that no one is sure just what will happen.
    -
    I am certain that the media will report more about the political theater than the policy decision– much less any polls on the desirability of increasing the deficit by allowing the marginal rate on top earners to revert to 1990s levels.

  • http://duegger54.wordpress.com duegger54

    If the house doens’t want to let the tax breaks expire for the rich, maybe the best thing is then to let them all expire. This then sould force them to write a newer tax provision.

  • tramposo24

    But the top 1 percent pay about 40 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government. It drives me crazy when people, including the president, suggest that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. They’re paying more than their share, and if the president gets his way, will be paying nearly HALF of all income taxes collected, plus what they pay through their businesses. And that’s just the top 1 percent, not all those making $250k and up. We’re building an entitlement society that villifies and penalizes successful people for becoming successful. THAT’S why the United States is falling behind.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

  • romerjt

    Tax cuts for the wealthy so they can create jobs for the rest of us . . what a bunch of crap.

    Do you think the near collapse of the financial system and the tremendous spike in income for the wealthy from tax cuts (and more) is a coincidence? Google this, “the growth of hedge funds” and you will see that it shot up right after 2000. How many jobs do hedge funds create especially since a third of them are based in the Cayman islands. How many jobs do credit defaults swaps, collateralize debt obligations and all the other exotics create?. Before the crash the profits of financial sector had grown to 40% of all US corporate profits, another coincidence?

    Come people wise up!

  • kbanginmotown

    The GOP, in its wisdom, set the tax cuts to expire in 10 years. Why should we presume to know better than they?
    .
    Let ‘em expire.

  • kevin

    And you could have abided by the terms of our bet and left this site forever.
    .
    But please, feel free to trash Bill Gates’ integrity.

  • kevin

    Yes, Michael’s numbers are off by a power of a thousand.

    Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the administration can’t afford to cut taxes for higher income earners.

    “Borrowing to finance tax cuts for the top 2 percent would be a $700 billion fiscal mistake,” Geithner said in excerpts of a speech to be delivered later today in Washington. “It’s not the prescription the economy needs right now, and the country can’t afford it.”

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-04/geithner-says-extending-tax-cuts-700-billion-fiscal-mistake-.html

  • kevin

    You act like restoring things to the pre-2001 level is some kind of act of crazy socialism. The country thrived under the tax rates Obama seeks to restore and, moreover, when the top marginal tax rate was in the 92%-94% range in the late 1940s and 1950s, this country experienced its single largest economic boom.
    .
    The only reason anyone should support tax cuts for the top 1% is (a) they’re in it and want the money for selfish reasons or (b) they want the American economy to fail.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    The right states emphatically that tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs. Given how confident they are in that assertion, let’s simply put it in writing. You get the tax cut, when someone gets a job.

  • diecash1

    Methinks that was (much) less about GOP wisdom and more about procedural requirements but point taken.

  • rdw56

    kevin.

    A lot of people don’t like to divide or discriminate by class.

    The season you like the idea of taxing the rich is because you a) are not rich and you want someone to pay your bill. You are a selfish, greedy parasite or B) you want the economy to fail. These are the people who create jobs.

  • rdw56

    It was both GOP wisdom and procedure. Bush had to come up with a projected long term deficit amount below a certain level. While any projection outside 2 years is worthless there was a political advantage to going along. The GOP wanted to have a debate in front of the 2010 elections on taxes to be able to call Democrats tax and spend liberals. Pretty good politicking no?

    BTW: Time has a new post up essentially signalling the GOP is going to win this one by extending ALL of the tax cuts for two years so democrats can run on tax increases in 2012.

    BTW2: It’s only the marxist gene in liberals that causes this class envy. Most Americans think it’s a good thing to have such successful people and admire them. They don’t think they have some innate right to force them to pay their bills. That’s simply parasitic.

  • rdw56

    He’s not a King.

  • rdw56

    “when the top marginal tax rate was in the 92%-94% range in the late 1940s and 1950s, this country experienced its single largest economic boom.”

    Now do you now why Obama called Reagan and not Clinton a transformational President?

  • rdw56

    “when the top marginal tax rate was in the 92%-94% range in the late 1940s and 1950s, this country experienced its single largest economic boom.”

    Now do you know why Obama called Reagan and not Clinton a transformational President?

  • rdw56

    And the outcome of this early battle is likely to set the stage for the bigger fights to come next year.

    *****************************

    Well said, the next fight will be stimulus with the red states blocking more payments to bankrupt blue states like CA. It has no chance of passing.

  • hippooath

    “Well said, the next fight will be stimulus with the red states blocking more payments to bankrupt blue states like CA. It has no chance of passing.”
    .
    You do know that blue states generally pay more monies to the treasury than red states – that blue states get less fed money back for every dollar that is sent to DC and red states gets more?
    .
    Those are just facts. But you’re right. Blue states should simply cancel sending all those money in and we’ll see how long red states can go on pretending they’re piling in the money.

  • kevin

    The season you like the idea of taxing the rich is because you a) are not rich and you want someone to pay your bill. You are a selfish, greedy parasite
    .
    My wife and my jointly filed income this year will be somewhere over $260,000, so I’m advocating against my own selfish interests. I’m asking to be taxed more because I have looked at the economic data and realized that when the pre-2001 tax rates were in place, the economy thrived, while with them, the economy tanked.
    .
    or B) you want the economy to fail. These are the people who create jobs.
    .
    Prove it. We had these massive tax cuts in place for the richest 1% since 2001, and the record of job growth creation was the worst for any decade since the Great Depression. A net loss in jobs in Bush’s first term, and an anemic 1 million created in Bush’s second. But when we had the pre-2001 tax rates in place? 22 million new jobs created under Bill Clinton.
    .
    Sorry, you might be stupid enough to believe the “tax cuts for the rich create jobs” idiocy, but I’m not.
    .
    You complain that the richest Americans have to pay more than their fair share, but you seem to be wholly ignorant of the fact that those richest Americans have been getting almost exponentially larger and larger slices of the economy in their income at the same time their tax rates have been slashed.
    .
    The average income for a CEO in this country increased by 298% between 1995 and 2005, while the average worker’s went up a pitiful 4.3%.
    http://consumerist.com/2007/04/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995-2005.html
    .
    As Bill Moyers recently noted:

    I must invoke some statistics here, knowing that statistics can glaze the eyes; but if indeed it’s the mark of a truly educated person to be deeply moved by statistics, as I once read, surely this truly educated audience will be moved by the recent analysis of tax data by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. They found that from 1950 through 1980, the share of all income in America going to everyone but the rich increased from 64 percent to 65 percent. Because the nation’s economy was growing handsomely, the average income for 9 out of l0 Americans was growing, too – from $17,719 to $30,941. That’s a 75 percent increase in income in constant 2008 dollars.
    .
    But then it stopped. Since 1980 the economy has also continued to grow handsomely, but only a fraction at the top have benefitted. The line flattens for the bottom 90% of Americans. Average income went from that $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that: the average income of Americans increased just $303 dollars in 28 years.

    http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766
    .
    Those are facts. The richest 1% has been getting richer and richer and paying less and less in taxes, and the end result is a top-heavy unhealthy economy.
    .
    I’ll now look forward to your rebuttal consisting of more Fox News bumper sticker slogans. Because the facts and the data sure as sh!t aren’t on your side.

  • romerjt

    Like I said, tax cuts did not, do not create jobs at least in the real world. Here is one source for this fact.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.html

    Every time one of those goons repeats this BS they need to called out. Too bad our clueless press doesn’t do their homework and know enough to be decent crap-detectors.

    data source BLS

  • kevin

    It’s only the marxist gene in liberals that causes this class envy. Most Americans think it’s a good thing to have such successful people and admire them
    .
    No, they don’t. The LA Times just conducted a massive poll on this issue, and your view of things is completely wrong.

    While liberals and the poor favored slightly more equal distributions than conservatives and the wealthy, a large majority of every group we surveyed — from the poorest to the richest, from the most conservative to the most liberal — agreed that the current level of wealth inequality was too high and wanted a more equitable distribution of wealth. In fact, Americans reported wanting to live in a country that looks more like Sweden than the United States.

    .
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-norton-wealth-inequality-20101108,0,1887934.story
    .
    But keep telling us all what most Americans want, even though you don’t have the slightest bit of evidence to back it up.

  • kevin

    Because he transformed an economy that worked for everyone into an economy that only worked for the very rich?
    .
    Quite a transformation, there.

  • kevin

    You do know that blue states generally pay more monies to the treasury than red states – that blue states get less fed money back for every dollar that is sent to DC and red states gets more?
    .
    No, of course not. RDW seems to be no smarter than any of the other Rusty clones.
    .
    http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2010/03/31/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending/
    .
    Seriously, if you red state rednecks want to secede from the country and let us in the blue states stop subsidizing you lazy welfare queens, please, don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

  • kmar20009

    The irony of this mess is that we borrowed the money to pay for the tax cuts to start with. The wealthy, looking for a safe and steady rate of return, invest it in Treasury bonds for which we give them tax free income. Each year the cycle repeats, with the government owing more and more to the wealthy to pay for the tax cuts they already gave them. This is a leading cause for the increasing inequity in distribution of wealth in this country. The pooling of the wealth at the top of the food chain, leaves little disposable income to provide economic growth in an economy which is 70% consumer spending driven. Ultimately, the wealthy would own everything, but long before that the economy and probably the government will collapse due to lack of demand.

  • tramposo24

    Kevin: Your stats have nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with our country switching from an industrial-based economy to a technology/services economy. The education system has done a terrible job of preparing young people to compete, creating high demand (and pay) for those who do get educations in high-paying fields and low demand (and pay) for those who don’t. Three out of every ten students doesn’t even graduate from HIGH SCHOOL in this country, yet we expect that 30% lag in the educated workforce to somehow be accomodated through nationalized health care, higher taxes for earners and more entitlements. In essence, you and people like you are giving up and perpetuating a class of poorer citizens dependent on society for their basic needs, with the bill due to the educated. YOU are the problem, not higher earners.

    To learn more, hit this link: http://www.nber.org/reporter/2008number1/heckman.html

  • fhmadvocat

    rdw56,

    What this is called is “Cooking the Books”. Something Republicans have shown themselves to be very good at doing.

    Bush knew his tax cuts would bust the debt if he made them permanent, so they set them to expire in 2010 knowing it would be passed on to the next president. That’s charging a lot on a credit card and leaving the next generation with the bill

    So given this history, we should we believe the Republicans when they say they are serious about the debt. History for the past 30 years tells us that they are full of BS. That’s why they lost in 2006 and 2008.

    As far as tax cuts, it is not about class envy, it is about fairness. Any person of reasonable intelligence knows that the rich pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. You can’t just look at federal income taxes, you have to look at all taxes. The wealthiest 400 in this country pay 16% of their income in ALL taxes. Okay, I wish I could pay just 16% of my income for all taxes, but that’s not the point.

    Taxes for the rich have been falling since 1980, while taxes on the middle class have gone up. If you want to balance the budget, tax increases are necessary. When it comes to Republicans, they give big tax breaks to the rich, and went it comes time for tax hikes, EVERYONE, needs to sacrifice.

    It is not about envy, it is about justice. Those who have gotten the largest benefit of the tax breaks of the past 30 years are those who should have to pony up any tax increases in the near future.

    I am not taking about going back to the 70% range, but even Clinton era tax increases won’t be bad. Remember how bad the economy was during the 1990s?

    Contrary to what you think, Liberals don’t suffer from class envy because vocal Liberals are either upper middle class or rich. Do you think George Soros suffers from class envy?

    What is screwy is CEOs running companies into the ground and ending up with millions in golden parachutes while the workers, through no fault of their own lose their pensions. If that does not upset you, maybe it is you who has issues with class.

  • hallaquila

    Under Bush, the tax cuts for the rich in terms of promoting growth or jobs were a failure and only added to the National Debt. They did not work under Bush nor during the first two years of President Obama.
    Under Bush’s first seven years, GDP growth was 2.1 percent and near zero in 2008. Under Clinton, 1993-2000, GDP growth was 3.9 percent or nearly double. Bush, at best, added only 1.1 million jobs, while Clinton added 22.7 million jobs (3 million more jobs than Reagan, Bush I & II combined) with a higher tax rate for the wealthest. Bush also added $6.1 trillion to the then $5.8 trillion National Debt. The GOP posted big mid-term election gains by promising to create jobs, reduce the National Debt, curb spending, yet continue the Bush tax cuts. They do not want to cut defense or Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc.–the Congressional sacred cows. So where are the budget cuts going to come from to make up the unfunded tax cuts?

  • rdw56

    It is not about envy, it is about justice. Those who have gotten the largest benefit of the tax breaks of the past 30 years are those who should have to pony up any tax increases in the near future.
    *************************

    It’s pure envy. Those who have worked the hardest and smartest have no moral obligation to support those who decided ti take it easy and/or made bad decisions. Bill Gates doesn’t owe you. Warren buffett doesn’t owe you. You grew up in the same country. They took advantage f the same opportunities eveyone else had. You didn’t. shame on you. Now because a majority of people can fleece the few, to get them to pay their expenses, they’re trying to make it seem just. That’s pure parasitic garbage. You are looking for a free ride.

  • rdw56

    Sorry Kevin. Reagan’s reputation as the greatest creator of wealth is well established as anyone who had a 401K in 1980 knows.

  • rdw56

    “You do know that blue states generally pay more monies to the treasury than red states -”

    Historically that’s true but they also got most in return. None of which matters. The situation is they let their public sector unions grow too larger and prosperous and are now out of control. If Bob Casey were to vote for a stimulus plan that sends $100M to CA to bail out it’s public unions the citizens of PA will send him into retirement. That’s a CA problem created at the state level that will be solved by CA at the state level.

  • rdw56

    Taxes for the rich have been falling since 1980, while taxes on the middle class have gone up

    ****************************************************

    Totally wrong. Taxes paid by the rich has skyrocketed since 1980.

  • rdw56

    Do you think George Soros suffers from class envy?

    *******************************

    No, I think George is a whackjob.

  • rdw56

    . In fact, Americans reported wanting to live in a country that looks more like Sweden than the United States.

    Are you aware Sweden no longer wants to be Sweden? They have been lowering their tax rates and total tax burden for years. You people are arguing against yourselves If Americans wanted to be Sweden the GOP would have lose 60 seats.

  • rdw56

    Seriously, if you red state rednecks want to secede from the country

    ************************

    Why succeed when you are getting control? It’s really a neat situation. Even moderately blue states are not about to subsidize CA and NY and MI. It makes no sense. The think to do it band together and squeeze CA. They’ve already raised taxes so high business is leaving. Well this is all win/win for everyone else. Did you know Utah has the same number of Senators as CA? Arizona, NM, TX, WY? You don’t get man you get even. My gut tells me Governor Moonbeam when having to fund the unions and without access to the Federal Treasury will raise more taxes. More businesses and even the rich hollywood flakes will leave. That’s just more economic growth for Arizona, Texas, etc. The GOP now has 40 solid conservative Senate seats. If Obama wants to bail out CA he’s going to have to pay a huge bribe to get the votes.

    This is the sort of thing 15 years ago ABC would not report and We’d not know. ABC isn’t a factor today. We know. Ca is absolutely, positively not getting bailed out.

  • rdw56

    That is not what the chart says. You lose arguments because you cannot present valid, coherent facts. The fact is liberalism was trashed last Tuesday and your spending increases will be reversed and tax increases denied.

  • rdw56

    You are gaming the data. Clinton inherited a strong economy. GWB inherited the collapse of Clintons asset bubble, Clintons accounting scandals and Clintons recession and 9/11.

    Not that it matters. We had a poll last Tuesday. Obama’s liberalism was trashed. We are going to a lower spending platform and will not be increasing taxes. Worse for liberals will be the ‘experiments’ in the states. It’s very clear the states coming out of recession 1st are the low tax, fiscally conservative states like Virginia.

    You should have elected someone with real world experience or who wasn’t so, so smart they’d actually listen to their economic advisors. History will prove that botched stimulus plan the political blunder of the ages.

  • rdw56

    Not really. the basic problem is you are trying to get someone else to pay your bills. you want to punish success and the people most likely to create jobs. That’s a marxist instinct not an American instinct. It is more than a little pleasing for this conservative to see this sort of normally successful populism fall so flat. It’s a sign we are now living in the age of Reagan.

    Think about that. Before he was elected no working American knew tax rates below 70%. Today very few can remember them above 40%. In the 30′s the very wealthy were scorned. Today Gates and Buffett and Dell are admired. Today to be 50 was to be 30 when you saw the rot of socialism when the USSR fell and to see Europe as a welfare state dependent on the USA for it’s defense and technological expertise. They must be a year or two since 1980 when France grew faster than the USA but I can’t remember. Our per capita income is near 45K they are near 33K. Copying failure seems to define insanity yet that’s where the libs want to go.

  • rdw56

    good eye,

    remember this is a bit tricky for Time. They have to be careful when citing the cost of the tax cuts. For 6 years they proclaimed the tax cuts were ONLY for the rich. They’d rather not show any numbers lest people see the tax cuts were far larger for the middle class.

  • rdw56

    Actually no, The beauty of having the tax cuts expire in 2010 was to lower the long term cost and so they could have a debate with liberals on tax and spend in front of an election. You may have noticed no one on your side in a remotely competitive seat was running on a promise to raise taxes. Funny how that works isn’t it?

  • kevin

    Taxes paid by the rich has skyrocketed since 1980.
    .
    Oh, well, if an anonymous person on the internet who’s already been proven wrong on a half dozen assertions in a single day says so — and once again, without any evidence to back it up — well, who are we to disagree?
    .
    How exactly have they skyrocketed? The top marginal tax rate has been cut in half since 1980, from 70% to 35%.
    .
    Numbers, please. Or is spouting tired conservative lies the only thing you’re capable of?

  • kevin

    Oh God, you’re adorable. You’re like a retarded child raised by the Cato Institute. No facts, no history, no knowledge of economics … just hero worship and Young Republican bumper stickers.

  • kevin

    Before he was elected no working American knew tax rates below 70%.
    .
    OK, seriously — are you twelve years old? Do you really think all working Americans were paying 70% of their income in taxes in 1980?
    .
    The top marginal tax rate is only applied to income in excess of a certain benchmark and in 1980 that was pegged at $215,400 in income.
    http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
    .
    In 1980, the median household income for Americans — working Americans, even! — was just $17,710. The threshold to be counted in the top five percent of income earners that year was $50,661.
    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html
    .
    The only way your laughable assertion makes sense is if you only consider Americans in the top 0.5% of income earners to truly be “working Americans.”

  • doctorowl

    I agree. The Republicans have had control before and they chose not to succeed then either.

  • apr2563

    rdw has a strange type of tourettes. He just says the same talking points over and over. Like Fox he thinks this will make them true.

  • apr2563

    rdw: I have been rich and I have been poor. As the saying goes, rich is better. Therefore, I can’t gin up empathy for those rich that have tax loop holes that mean that they pay no income tax or they send their money to shelters, or they sit on their assets and do not invest in this country. It is not envy, but something Jesus and most religious icons spoke about. Taking care of the least of us. Rendering unto Caesar. You know that dreadful social justice stuff.
    So let me reitterate, I don’t envy the rich or you, whatever your financial status is.

  • rdw56

    nice pun, I do need to check my spelling.

  • romerjt

    Hey drw56, . . . Losing the argument, what argument? This isn’t about elections, it isn’t about liberal, it isn’t even about Bush, it’s about the unsupportable assertion that tax cuts create jobs and here are the numbers. During the Clinton administration about 22 million jobs were created, (and this isn’t about Clinton either), stay focused here . . for Bush and the tax cuts, 3 million jobs. The point is, tax cuts targeted for the wealthy have no history of creating jobs, they are at best incidental, at worst harmful, which by the way, is really my point. Providing the very wealthy (not $260, 000) with even more $$$ will continue to destabilize the economy. Hedge funds, CDS, CDO, currency speculation, commodity hedges do not create jobs. 22 to 3 is a fact.

  • rdw56

    It absolutely is about ideology. It’s about tax rates, spending levels, regulation, trade, the size and role of govt, etc. It’s big govt versus small govt. In an advanced economy such as ours you can’t trace one factor, i.e., tax rates, to one other factor, i.e. jobs. There are dozens of other factors. Reagan’s lecture on lower tax rates covered a lot of benefits not just jobs. He’s general idea was to restore the incentives to work and invest and thus get many more technological advances and productivity advances, which directly ties to standard of living increases. In two words ‘economic freedom’.

    Ironically the 1st President t seriously deregulate was Jimmy Carter. Once upon a time many prices were fixed especially as regards transportation. If AT&T wasn’t broken up we might not have cell phones today. It’s about all of these things.

    And you have absolutely, positively lost the argument and you lost it because you elected someone utterly clueless on economics. There are still a few places where many think socialism is the best system but hasn’t had the right people implementing it. The Harvard campus would be one of those places. I don’t know what Obama’s ideal world look like but it’s far more regulated and controlled than Reagan’s.

    Where you want to keep your eye is on the states. There is a sharp difference between Texas and California and between New York and Virginia. You’ve heard the old saw, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. Well about 35 governors just got elected promising to follow the leadership of Texas and Virginia. Not a one promised to raise taxes, increase spending and regulate more. You will see governors like Christie and McDonnell deliver lower spending and tax cuts gradually reducing the role of State govt as a percent of GDP putting CA, NY, MI, IL, etc at an even greater disadvantage.

  • rdw56

    ‘I don’t envy the rich or you’

    It doesn’t matter. Your form of populist politics is by definition parasitic and is based entirely on envy and greed. It’s the old ‘I’ll put a chicken in every pot and hand someone else the bill”.

    The bottom line is this isn’t Europe. We don’t despise rich people. We don’t buy this simple-minded arguments that the rich got that way be exploiting the poor or that the USA is imperialistic. You don’t have the same environment as in the pre-Reagan era. You put this garbage out about the middle class hasn’t advanced since 1980. Are you out of your minds? Huge houses filled with PCs and flatscreens with dramatically better cars in the driveway where virtually everything is cheaper from airfares, phones, clothes, food, energy, etc. We pay more for bottled water than gasoline.

  • rdw56

    kevin, It’s not just me. We live in the Reagan era. He redefined economics in the USA. That’s why Obama called him transformational. Just consider this week. The most eloquent man to hold the office in 150 years can’t manage to raise tax rates even 1% on just 1% of the population.

    If this were a boxing match that’s a KO in the 1st 10 seconds of the 1st round.

  • apr2563

    By the way, a “chicken in every pot” comes from the Republicans via Henry IV.
    .

    http://www.answers.com/topic/chicken-in-every-pot
    .
    They also offerred a car in every backyard.

  • kevin

    So you want to say that an economy in shambles, with massive income inequality and no real manufacturing base, and massive national debt with the IOUs held by Communist China is the great accomplishment of the Age of Reagan?
    .
    Yeah, that’s quite an accomplishment there.
    .
    I’m not sure what you think has transpired this week. Obama hasn’t sought a tax increase on the rich this week — he’s actually halfway around the world in India — and more to the point, he doesn’t have to seek a tax increase on the rich. He doesn’t have to lift a finger to do that because the Republicans already set that in motion. It’s going to happen Jan. 1, 2011.

  • kevin

    “Chicken in every pot” was also the campaign slogan of a great Republican tax cutting president. His name was Herbert Hoover.
    .
    Gosh, I wonder how things worked out on his watch?

  • kevin

    You put this garbage out about the middle class hasn’t advanced since 1980
    .
    This garbage is supported by actual demonstrable economic data. In constant dollars, average income went from $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. In 28 years in the Glorious Age of Reagan the Magnificent, the average income of Americans increased just $303 dollars. So, yes, technically, their wages have advanced. By less than 1 percent.
    .
    Your counter-argument is that people have flatscreen TVs so things must be OK. Seriously?
    .
    The family that has that flatscreen TV — which cost a whopping $600 now — is increasingly likely to be a two-income family in which both parents work (93% of all families are like this now) whereas in 1980, the vast majority of families were single-income with one parent at home. And that family, according to longitudinal studies, is saving much less and spending much more with a vastly higher proportion of credit card debt.
    .
    That’s what the Age of Your God Reagan has wrought — flatlined wages that have both parents working, deeper in debt, less time with their kids, falling further and further behind. You’re right, Reagan was so incredibly transformational.

  • rdw56

    I have no idea what data you are using or why. You seem to be using salaries exclusively which ignores deferred and non-cash income. You are trying to say we are no better off than in 1980 yet lifestyles have improved dramatically with bigger more energy efficient houses, cars, more and better gadgets, more travel, more eating out, etc.

    One other weird thing is the goofy focus on how much incomes the rich report. That was the entire point of lower marginal tax rates on the rich. The great American past time was hiding incomes using all sorts of tax shelters and other deferrals. The rich aren’t making more as much as declaring more. That is why the top 1% pay a dramatically higher share of total taxes paid and the bottom 50% pay a tiny fraction of total taxes paid.

    Your argument is incoherent and, as we saw last week, a total loser. Americans are not interested is fleecing the rich just because they can.

    Did you see today’s budget recommendations? It’s a train wreck for liberals. It’s been one setback after another.

  • rdw56

    “So the most likely outcome is an extension”

    Did you even read the article? This is Time magazine preparing liberals for the capitulation to come. They also adore your Messiah but recognize he can’t take on Reagan. He is not going to raise tax rates 1% on even just the top 1%.

    He’s not just lost the argument, it’s been a 1st round KO. He can’t even get back to Clinton tax rates. Keynes is for all practical purposed dead. It’s all about the size and reach of gov and it’s getting rolled back and this is at the state and federal levels. It isn’t just that they don’t hate the rich or hate class warfare but they have zero confidence in Obama.

    As soon as he gets back he’s going to have to surrender because all of the many processors of paychecks need to know what the tax rates are going to be. In many cases checks dated 1/1/2011 have to be processed and printed by 12/16 in order to be distributed. You can’t just throw off that kind of change overnight. The nightmare for Obama isn’t just that he won’t get his way but the extension will be for two years so it’s a key part of the 2012 campaign. The 2nd blow will be to deny CA a bailout.

  • rdw56

    Hoover was a progressive and he never cut taxes. He more than doubled taxes.

  • doctorowl

    What percentage of the tax burden IS payed by the top 1% of the population? Cite your source, please.

  • rdw56

    New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

    Data also show incomes growing across all percentile groups

    For more information, contact the press office at 202-464-6200.

    Washington, DC, October 4, 2007 – New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows.

    Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005 (updated October 2007)

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

    The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation’s income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns

  • rdw56

    READER RON BAAKKONEN WRITES, CAN WE START CALLING THEM THE OBAMA TAX CUTS NOW? “President Barack Obama’s top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.”

    Of course we can’t call them that. The Bush tax cuts were an irresponsible giveaway to the very wealthy. The Obama tax cuts will be an essential tool to save the middle class. In fact, note this: “That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week’s electoral defeat.” I don’t think we’d ever been told before that Bush gave any tax cuts to the middle class. I thought they all went to fat guys in three-piece suits who lit cigars with hundred-dollar bills.

    *****************************************

    RDW- do you people have any clue as to how completely the wheels have come off. The battle isn’t lost. It’s been abandoned.

    Next war – The California bailout. My guess is this will be about 10-1 against. It should be 49-1 but all of the other loser states will band together. Liberalism is so screwed.

    Did you notice Nancy is losing her jet? Boehner flies commercial like the rest of the great unwashed.

blog comments powered by Disqus