home

Pelosi: No Tax Cuts For The Rich

Speaker Pelosi:

[O]ur position in the House has been we support the tax cuts for the middle — for everyone, but not an additional tax cut at the high end. It’s too costly. It’s $700 billion. One year would be around $70 billion. That’s a lot of money to give a tax cut at the high end. And I remind you that those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs.

The advantage of having Speaker Pelosi continue as Dem leader in the next Congress would be precisely to articulate the liberal position. If in 2012, Dems decide to choose another image for the election, they can retire Pelosi. For now, the reality is Dems will have no say in what legislation comes out of the House the next two years. But they can distance themselves from policies that they disagree with. And of course, lame duck Speaker Pelosi can basically say no to all the bad ideas floating around now. Let President Obama and Speaker Boehner pass their bad policies in the next Congress, if they can.

Speaking for me only

< The Third Way's Dishonesty | Fun With Labels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Exactly. That is the benefit of having leadership (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    from blue states instead of red and purple ones.

    At least for Dems. Republicans from any state don't mind articulating the position of their base. Only Dems have to go off the record for that.

    The only reason Pelosi will reverse course (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    is if the White House insists.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    So now I'm counting down...

    Parent
    although... (none / 0) (#20)
    by sj on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    ... I would like very much to be wrong.

    Parent
    Look, I love Nancy Pelosi, but why isn't this (none / 0) (#21)
    by steviez314 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    "just words", like everyone here says about Obama?

    She still has the gavel and could schedule a vote next week on making permanent the middle class tax cuts, and putting every Blue Dog, Republican and Senator on the spot.

    I know the Blue Dogs didn't want her to do it before the election (like that helped!), but why not now?

    Parent

    The words do lay down a marker (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    It is a first step.  Someone needed to say it.

    When the vote occurs does not matter to me.....The result does.  I would give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt here.

    Parent

    You know, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 04:04:59 PM EST
     the Pelosi/Obama relationship is a bit of a mystery; I`m not sure which is the Alpha.

    I heard somewhere that Obama wanted to cave on HCR much earlier but Pelosi convinced Obama she had the votes.

    Not sure if that's true, or not, but, in any case, there's NO debate as who's got the Liberal/progressive creds in that duo.

    Let Nancy be Nancy, cut her loose, and make some waves.


    Parent

    Pelosi is (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:41:26 PM EST
    an actual liberal, and she never caves unless she finds out she simply does not have the votes. (See, for instance, her decision to stay as party leader even in the minority rather than meekly slinking away like the Veal Pen thinks she should.)

    She's also one hell of an expert on parliamentary and political maneuvers.  I would venture to say she's got a superbly supple and subtle mind on how to squeeze the most she can possibly get out of her members.

    I could be wrong, but I also suspect she's at least to some extent going to be cutting herself and her members loose from what Obama wants from now on.  A truly disastrous mid-term does weaken the duty/desire to take orders from the pres.


    Parent

    from your (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 02:27:52 AM EST
    lips.......

    Parent
    Right. If the President and the standard (none / 0) (#22)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    bearer of her Party cuts a deal with Republicans she can just override it.  Get real.  Her and what army?

    Parent
    Congress writes legislation. They did for (none / 0) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    Health Care, Cap and Trade, etc.  This is no different.

    If they vote and it fails, it fails.  But we all get to see who voted how.

    Parent

    Let the tax cuts expire (none / 0) (#25)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    and let Pelosi blame Bush for passing the middle class tax sunset law that increased taxes for the middle class.

    Obama can work with Boehner and Reid in 2011 to write a bipartisan permanent tax cut bill for the middle class. If the Republicans attempt to piggy back a Paris Hilton tax cut for the rich with middle class tax cuts next year with conservative Democrats, atleast 41 Senate Democrats should be ready to filibuster it. Obama should be ready to issue a veto. Pelosi should be ready to call out Boehner and Republicans for not being bipartisan. And Democrat activists should be ready to make Boehner a household name for toxicity if he does not swear by bipartisanship.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    Boehner and the GOP will NOT compromise.

    Bi-partisan is bullsh!t and your President will not veto a bill that includes upper income tax cuts if he can label it as bi-partisan.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he twisted arms in the Senate to prevent a filibuster just as he twisted arms in the House to get war funding through.


    Parent

    The Republicans were not bipartisan for the last (4.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    2 years (at least), and were very obvious about it, and they were not punished a bit by the voters. What makes you think they would be punished now?

    That said, I agree with the actions you suggest.

    Parent

    To:Politalkix (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 04:32:23 PM EST
    Timing here is very important. My view is that the vote be scheduled as soon as possible after the lame duck Congress reconvenes. Democratic leverage decreases in direct proportion to the passage of time on this. There may be all kind of complicated strategies involving passage during the new Congress...but, with the House under Republican control, we will lose control of the message about who helped (or not) the middle class taxpayers.  Most important: Do not risk letting the 1st of January come and the tax cut expire for the middle class...that courts message (and reality) disaster because you have little control over any retroactive fix...and, count on the Repubs to spin it successfully as the Dems being asleep at the switch knowing full well (and having control to stop) that the tax cuts were about to expire. Ugh! It is hard to contemplate how stupid it would be to play into the Repubs need for delay at this point. The delayer here will win (sort of like the infamous August 2009 recess without action on the healthcare bill.)

    If the Democrats are seen to move ahead quickly, any negotiation leverage--e.g., possibly raising the $250K to 300K or 400K in traditional compromise--remains with the WH and the Congressional Democrats before the new Congress. Actually, the AFL-CIO plan focuses on getting the tax cut extension for the middle class under this Congress (and, not negotiate beyond that.)

    Parent

    We never had (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    "control of the message."

    And the GOPers would be absolutely delighted if the Dems. wouldn't go along with extending the millionaires' tax cut because then they can say the Dems. raised taxes for the middle class because they're so intent on class warfare, they insisted on raising taxes on small businesses, too.

    The GOP has control of the message, and the message is not "tax cuts for the rich" but "tax hikes for small businesses" and therefore "job-killing agenda."

    I see no way to win on this at this point.  The Dems are completely over a barrel.


    Parent

    Is it a loss, gyrfalcon, if we pass only (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    the extension of middle-class cuts? If that is passed with a redefinition at a higher rate (say $375K or 500K?) Do you believe that it is necessary to estend all tax cut extensions? If not, how would you frame the message.

    BTW, I think you make a good point about the "small business" argument that will be used. How do we take that one off the table?

    Parent

    Redefinition at a higher rate (none / 0) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:46:18 PM EST
    (say $375K or $500K as you say) is about as much compromise the Democrats should make, nothing more! However, they should keep the middle class tax cut and not extend the tax cuts for the rich. They should hold the line and dare the Republicans to stop them. Believe me, the Democrats can call the Republican bluff on this one. I have friends who identify themselves as conservatives (the sane ones who like Lincoln and Eisenhower and Ford but not Reagan and Bush) who laugh at the "small business" argument that Republicans use. One of them who voted for Obama also laughed similar arguments that Joe Plumber made in 2008. Some of these Republicans are totally disgusted with Tea Party antics and feel they are without a party now. It is important to retain republicans and independent conservatives such as these. If we can keep people like the friends I mentioned and hold on to the Democratic base, we should be fine.  

    Parent
    Arguments (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:11:46 PM EST
    (1) Say that only a very small % (maybe 2-3%) of "small business" owners will be affected if the billionaires and millionaires tax cuts expire.
    (2) Say that the increased revenue obtained from the tax increase of millionaires and billionaires will be ploughed back into the economy immediately through investments in infrastructure which will create jobs.
    (3) Say that the argument about the necessity of providing tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires is bogus. We do not know whether this money is stashed in tax free havens outside the United States or used to buy chateaus in the South of France. However, if the money is taxed, it can be invested to create jobs.
    (4) Say that tax cuts for the rich were tried for 10 years by Bush. It did not lead to any significant job creation but brought the US and world economy to the brink of collapse in 2008. Emphasize that more jobs were created in the 1990s during Bill Clinton's presidency when the rich were paying higher taxes.
    All are pretty standard arguments, however the Democrats should learn to repeat them over and over again till they stick in the minds of every
    person who votes.

    Parent
    Doesn't matter because (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 12:14:47 AM EST
    it can't be done.  The GOPers will go to the mattresses over it.

    And the small business argument isn't what "will be" used, it's been the GOP mantra for months and months now.  If the Dems were competent at messaging, it wouldn't have passed the laugh test from the beginning.  But they're not.  It can't be effectively countered by "our side."  That's why they absolutely will cave-- except maybe Nancy Pelosi.  None of the rest of them have the *** to stick to their guns over it.

    And just for the record, NO, I'm not in favor of it.  I think the rich should be soaked on taxes.  When I was a little kid, the top marginal tax rate was 90 percent, then JFK lowered it to 70 percent.  We had whompingly good economic growth all during that time.

    I'm in favor of confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy a la Eisenhower.

    Parent

    It has to be done, period (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 10:41:06 AM EST
    In the lame duck session they should just pass a permanent "Obama Tax Cut for the Middle Class and Small Businesses" and let the Bush Tax cuts expire. Draw a line in the sand and dare the Republicans to stop it. Announce that Boehner and the Republicans will be held responsible for hurting an economic recovery as well as ballooning of the deficit if they oppose the passing of tax cuts for only the Middle Class and small business owners.
    All of us should be calling our Senators and Congressmen and working the President on this issue.

    Parent
    Agree completely, Politalkix (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    Should, should, should (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 03:12:59 PM EST
    They won't, and if they did, they'd lose anyway.  And so would you and I and the country's economy as a whole.

    I don't know why some people continue to grossly underestimate the Republicans' utter nihilism.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    either. If it wasn't obvious in the 90's that they would blow up the whole country rather than admit they were wrong then there's no convincing anyone now.

    Parent
    Now that they have no power (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    Nancy can go back to hiding behind the powerlessness and pretending to be about the little guy...

    When they had ALL the power, they didn't do much of anything, but now, shout it loud!

    It's all a pretence, but it's cute.

    The House under Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    passed a mountain of legislation.....

    Parent
    And made a lot of compromises in the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    process.

    I will say this, though: if the House had been running the country like a Parliament for the last 4 years, we would all be in much better shape now.

    Parent

    The climate bill and repeal of DADT (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    It was a lot of progressive/liberal legislation.

    Parent
    Agreed. Pelosi's House has been the only saving (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    of the last two years.  She passed a ton of legislation that of course went on to die on Harry Reid's desk.  And, as far as compromises, when the President is cutting the sort of deals he cut, there's not much more Pelosi could have done.

    Parent
    That's blaming (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:12:55 PM EST
    Pelosi and the House for the cravenness and inaction of the corporatist Senate.

    Parent
    Yes, I think Pelosi's House deserves (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    the least blame for the debacle of the last two years. Too bad she has to pay the price.

    Parent
    There she goes. Perfect framing. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    And for once, someone points out everyone benefits from the cuts.  Good for Pelosi.

    really glad someone said this (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    "I remind you that those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs."

    If tax cuts were the be-all end-all to job creation, the economy would not be where it is today.

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    I have been waiting for it, and have screamed it at my TV many times.

    Parent
    Brava Pelosi! (none / 0) (#1)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:39:34 AM EST


    Why don't they just schedule the darned vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    already, and just let the chips fall where they may.

    Because not scheduling the vote (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    causes the tax cuts to expire.

    Parent
    They can schedule any vote they want..Lets have a (none / 0) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    vote on the middle class tax cuts.  While Dems have the gavels, they can have any vote they want.

    Parent
    I understood this differently (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    when I heard it on the radio this morning. "[W]e support the tax cuts for the middle -- for everyone, but not an additional tax cut at the high end. It's too costly. It's $700 billion."  When she says, "for everyone," especially after beginning to say, "for the middle class ..." and correcting herself, does that not imply a backtrack to supporting tax cuts for the rich?  Why can't she and the President be clear? The Bush tax cuts are due to expire.  Tax rates will thus automatically go up, unless the Bush cuts are affirmatively extended by Congress and the President signs off on it.  Do we agree or disagree that expiration of the Bush reductions would amount to an "increase"?  Or would it constitute a return to the prior, base rate, from what was supposed to be a temporary, jobs-producing "cut"?  As we know, the reduction at the top did not produce jobs, just bloated increases in wealth for the rich.  (And they cost the budget $700 billion - the only indication in her comment that she is actually talking about the high end cuts.)  Time to let them expire.  However, the middle class cuts should continue, for good economic reasons that can and should be explained clearly.  What exactly is Pelosi saying when she refers to "everyone"?

    I think she said "everyone" because (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    if the cuts are extended for the middle class, the wealthy will  get the benefit of the lower rates in the ride up the brackets.  

    And if I am not mistaken, I believe Obama intends for the preferential rate on dividends to be made permanent - which would clearly represent a benefit to the wealthy.

    There was quite a bit of analysis on this back before the election, and I remember reading that the benefit the wealthy would realize even if "only" the middle-class rates are extended would be fairly significant - so once again, all this boo-hooing by the GOP is just so much crocodile tears - and flat-out greed.

    Parent

    Thanks, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:44:03 PM EST
    Your explanation is very helpful.  I do wish when Obama and Pelosi issue such comments that would make a slight effort to actually say what they mean, rather than utter unintelligible sound bites.

    Parent
    Heh. You simply can't (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:49:58 PM EST
    parse Nancy's statements for subtle clues and dog whistles.  She is, as you say, often completely incoherent when she speaks in public.  She doesn't do it often, so you can't even depend on seeing where key phrases change.

    Obama is somewhat better, although not much, but he speaks publicly so often, you can track when words like "permanent" as applied to tax cuts for the rich start appearing regularly.

    Parent

    have total income of less than $50K, fwiw.

    Parent
    The voter will see it as what it is (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    Do we agree or disagree that expiration of the Bush reductions would amount to an "increase"?  Or would it constitute a return to the prior, base rate, from what was supposed to be a temporary, jobs-producing "cut"?  

    an increase in the current level.

    Parent

    Yes, because Americans (none / 0) (#49)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 07:02:56 PM EST
    love keeping the tax cuts that have led to our current level of prosperity for 10 years now, and think that asking people with a mere quarter-million in taxable income to sacrifice is unthinkable.

    Parent
    Pelosi (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:28:58 PM EST
    Is losing steam among Dems. and doesn't have nearly the power within the party anymore, even in a lame duck session  Rep. Mike Quigley (D), who won Rahm Emanuel's seat out of Chicago, told the AP, that, "The reality is that she is politically toxic."

    The fact that there is a huge banner hanging outside the Republican National Committee headquarters that says "Hire Pelosi" should tell us all something.

    They'd just go ahead and make the next (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    poor bastard who replaced her "toxic". If I'm going to be stuck with rank incompetents like Obama and Reid, I'll be glad to have someone mildly competent like Pelosi to balance it out.

    Parent
    Always the competent women in (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    this Party somehow become "politically toxic".  I'd like to know to whom?  There is no evidence Pelosi lost anyone their seat.

    Parent
    We should stop repeating Republican phrases (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    Pelosi is "toxic" only to Republicans because she is effective. She has been a very good Speaker and majority leader.  

    Parent
    We have to pass the bill (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    to know what's in the bill.

    Need I say more?

    Parent

    And why let Repubs (none / 0) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:26:27 PM EST
    shape our discussion and our thinking?

    Parent
    If she really were out of steam (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:32:01 PM EST
    she would not be in the running for Minority Leader. As it happens, she clearly already has the votes for that.

    Parent
    On that point (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims to have the "overwhelming support" of the Democratic Caucus in her bid to be minority leader in the new Congress.

    Her support is not unanimous, she says, but most members believe she's not the cause of her party's historic losses in the midterm elections. . . .

    "It isn't about me. Maybe the Republicans will take a course of action that will solve problems -- God bless them if they do. But, maybe, they will pursue what they have said," Pelosi said. "The opportunity that is there is to have clarity. Maybe, they will be more eloquent in defining themselves than we could have ever been in defining them."




    Parent
    Hah. Love it. (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 06:59:25 AM EST
    She can "claim" to have anything she wants.  George Bush "claimed" he had a mandate when he won. I can "claim" I'm the Queen of England - doesn't mean it's true.

    Pelosi may win again, and maybe she won't - she could win with a plurality since there are a few others in the running that could split the anti-Pelosi vote. And the vote is set to take place Wednesday - when all those Blue Dogs who lost and maybe didn't agree with her or her handling of issues - also get to vote.

    But I still think it's interesting that Republicans are taking up the mantle to get her to be Minority Leader as opposed to a Steny Hoyer or James Clyburn or someone else.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    don't 70% want to end tax cuts for the rich?

    wonder how long the slam on Pelosi will work when she's saying what the voters want . . . ?

    Parent

    Oh, come on (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:53:59 PM EST
    You're falling for GOP talking points again.  They're doing their best to make her "politically toxic," but please remember that before they used Pelosi to raise money and whip up their base, they used Hillary Clinton, and before that it was Teddy Kennedy for decades.  Hillary's and Teddy's power inside the party wasn't diminished one tiny speck by it.  If anything, it enhanced it.

    All that's happening now is the remaining few Blue Dogs in the House are trying to push themselves into the media and make their constituents happy by cluck-clucking about Pelosi.

    You'll notice not a single one of them is prepared to actually challenge her.  That should tell you a heck of a lot more than Michael Steele's banner.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 07:00:20 AM EST
    As I pointed out - that was a Chicago Democrat that called her "politically toxic", so if you want to accuse someone of using Republican talking points, point your finger that way.

    Parent
    Let 'em have the tax cut... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    just offset with cuts to spending specific to protection racket services...I mean there is a reason they become millionaires and billionaires, the sh*t is rigged in their favor...if they don't wanna pay for the strings, fair enough, cut the strings.  

    Drastic cuts to corporate welfare programs and subsidies, remove tax loopholes and shelters, don't renew lucrative government contracts...me thinks within a few years of a less rigged market, they'll be begging to pay more to get their protection racket back in action.


    That would be...let them pay taxes based (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    on the current rate, not give then a tax cut.

    And while I agree the game is in favor of those with the most chips, I can't figure out what they have that they aren't paying on.

    As opposed to the millions who pay nothing....and still have "protection."

    Parent

    Correct, current rate... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    Those that pay little have little, not that I buy this working class people don't pay income taxes bunk...I've got the paystubs and tax returns to prove otherwise old friend. Not to mention all the hidden taxes.

    Parent
    A family of 4 pays no FIT (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    on income up to around $38,000.

    So they have little and have paid nothing.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 06:28:33 PM EST
    Yeah, if you don't count the taxes they pay on stuff like sales or property or FICA or Medicare.

    Parent
    We've gone over this before (3.50 / 2) (#50)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    about 2 months ago:

    Fareed Zakaria, from www.washingtonpost(dot)com:

    The idea that the average American is overtaxed is a nice piece of populist pandering. In fact, federal taxes as a percentage of the economy are at their lowest level since the Truman administration. Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have calculated that a family of four at the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in taxes. Remember, almost half of the country pays no income taxes at all. The top 2 percent of Americans contribute almost 50 percent of federal income taxes.

    The simple facts are these: All of the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom. Conservatives thought they would force us to shrink the government. But with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, did reduced taxes cause reduced spending? No. They led to ever-increasing borrowing and a ballooning deficit.

    We have one of the smallest governments among all the world's rich countries. Yet we refuse to pay for it. (Yes, health-care spending is the big exception and, yes, we will have to get those costs under control.) I understand the fear that this is not a good time to raise taxes. But the impact of marginal shifts in tax rates on growth is pretty unclear. Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return. Three tax cuts enacted since the financial crisis have done little to spur growth. In any event, if timing is the issue, Congress could extend all the tax cuts for a year but then let them expire. Better yet, spend money on far more efficient ways to spur job creation, such as tax credits for jobs, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would create four to six times as many jobs as would tax cuts.

    Click Me

    Parent

    When you make beans (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:54:31 PM EST
    4.6% of your income can mean the difference between paying your utility bill or not.

    That's the part the left side of the aisle doesn't seem to get. Working class people need ever last bit of their income to pay for their housing, health care, utilities, transportation and every other thing under the sun that Congress has not really regulated for awhile now.

    It's particularly galling to be paying that 4.6% and be getting nothing to show for it or even worse policy that actually hurts you.

    Parent

    The "exact middle" (2.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 01:58:59 AM EST
    of the income spectrum would be the 50th percentile, and let's say a 40K salary, 4.6% of that amount would be 1840$, not a small sum, I agree.

    You've seized on a random statistic in order to bash people on the left, why is that?

    Parent

    Hello Dark Avenger (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    Facts be facts, PPJ (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:49:32 AM EST
    Whether you call me "The Dark Avenger", or Al, it betokens a lack of facts or logic on your side when you can't respond to the substance of a post but raise a fuss about the identity.

    No charge for the education.

    Parent

    My comments were re FIT (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 07:31:35 PM EST
    and they were accurate.

    If you want to argue that we need more taxes, be my guest.

    And yes, I think you are the commentator previously known as The Dark Avenger. I base this on some of your comments here and on my blog.

    Parent

    Re: FIT (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 08:08:16 PM EST

    they were accurate.

    No, your comment was (and is) only correct if in the said family of 4 both children are under the age of 17.

    If you want to argue that we need more taxes, be my guest.

    Which is why I posted the excerpt from the column by Mr. Zakaria earlier, because that's the argument he makes in it.

    And yes, I think you are the commentator previously known as The Dark Avenger. I base this on some of your comments here and on my blog.

    If that's what you honestly believe,and you're not using a diversionary tactic because you can't deal with what I've written here and at your blog, then you should report me to Jeralyn to get me banned here.

    Since you aren't compelled to post anything I or anyone else leaves at your blog, you wouldn't have to deal with me here or there in the future.

    The choice is yours, as always.


    Parent

    You understood my premise (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    And yes, you are Dark Avenger.

    lol

    Snuck back in, eh?

    Parent

    If you're really a friend of Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    you'd tell her of your accusation towards me, so your actions define you more than your words on this thread.

    Attempting to use it as a mud-throwing tactic assumes that I'm afraid of you doing just that, so I'm calling your bluff, to use language that you should easily understand.  

    What have you got to lose?  If you're wrong, nobody will know about it aside from my continued presence here and of course yourself and Jeralyn, if you're correct, you'd be free with dealing with someone you've accused of stalking you in the past.

    Anyway, we've wasted enough of her bandwidth on this issue, and good luck with your blog and the crusade against the Socialist/Islamic campaign in case I'm no longer allowed to comment here in the future.

    Parent

    Put simply, (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    I don't believe anything that Pelosi says.