GOP To Fight For Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, Including Blocking Tax Cuts For 95% Of Americans

Not a shocking headline obviously. But I like the Dem political plan on the issue as reported by the NYTimes:

Negotiations are expected to start in the Senate, where it is hardest for Democrats to advance legislation because of Republican filibusters. But some Democrats say a fallback plan would be to have their larger majority in the House approve a continuation of the lower rates just for the middle class right before the election, almost daring Republicans to oppose them.

In that case, Democrats say, Republicans who opposed the bill would be blocking a tax cut for more than 95 percent of Americans to defend tax cuts for a relatively few wealthy households. [. . .] In the weekly Republican radio address on Saturday, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana promised an all-out push to extend the tax cuts [to the wealthy.] “House Republicans will oppose this tax increase with everything we’ve got,” he said.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Dems seem to have the politics AND the policy right on this one. We'll see.

Speaking for me only

< Is Conservative A Dirty Word? | Wikileaks: Biggest Leak Yet of Military Documents >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why fall back? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    Introduce that bill and make the Republicans vote for it over and over again.

    High Broderism (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    Btu I a m ok with it.

    Between you and me, I am ok with just letting the tax cuts expire.


    What I worry about (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    is that we'll get an "agreement" where all of the cuts are extended for some "reasonable" period (5 years, say) on account of "the economy."  Ben Nelson will explain how he wanted to make them permanent, but could grudgingly accept a "compromise."

    The added insult would be that such a plan will STILL barely get 60 votes. (Never mind that you can use reconciliation for this, as Bush did in the first place).


    Yeah- what could go wrong? (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    I think we may find out.  Hope not though. Maybe they know what they are doing this time. If the fallback is within happens and the tax cuts expire, I'm fine with that too. 10% unemployment after all. Fewer than ever of the middle class benefitting from tax cuts anyway.

    Let me guess (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by goldberry on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    The Republicans agree to this IFF the Catfood Commission's cuts and adjustments are guaranteed to pass.  

    There can be no negotiations as far as I'm concerned.  By the time those of us constantly  in danger of losing our jobs are ready to retire, social security may be the only thing we have left.  So, no deals.


    An article (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    From today's The Hill talks about how the tax cuts for the wealthy and PAYGO, but also says this:

    However, concerns over the economy have added considerable political pressure to Democrats seeking re-election who wish to avoid the "tax increaser" label in the run-up to November. That pressure might force Democratic leaders to rethink their position on extending the upper brackets, at least temporarily.


    A growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers in both chambers wants to extend the top rates until the economic crisis subsides. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) is chief among them.

    I don't know who else is part of this "growing chorus", bur they haven't gotten the talking points yet.


    Ugh- within = nothing (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    iPad not correcting me properly!

    Yes, increasing taxes for Hoover worked well, eh? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    aren't we talking a dif of (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    4% vs 40%?

    The 1932 tax increases were regressive. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:37:48 AM EST
    The average income was around $1,850 per year (according to this site).

    For people making under $6,000 per year, the tax rate increased by 167% (from 1.5% to 4.0% on the first $4,000, and from 3.0% to 8.0% on the remainder).

    The $6,000 to $8,000 bracket rate increased by 200% (from 3.0% to 9.0%).

    Beyond $8,000, the increases were smaller.

    Source of tax rates.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:32:19 AM EST
    Your link also has a Tax Calculator that let's anyone figure out exactly what getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts cost them.

    Click here for calculator.


    That's not my link. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    And it doesn't tell me how much the Bush Tax Cuts cost future generations.

    That website tells me, "If Congress fails to act to extend the Bush tax cuts, your income tax burden will be $4,938 higher in 2011."

    However, it calculates that the tax laws suggested in President Obama's budget will give us the same net tax as would keeping the Bush Tax Cuts.

    I wouldn't expect a website that refers to my civic responsibility as a "burden" to point out that "If Congress fails to enact Obama's proposed tax plan, your net income tax will be $4,938 higher in 2011."

    My household's taxes come out the same with Obama's tax plan as they do with Bush's debt-burden plan.


    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    Your link was to the Tax Foundation.org which links to the Tax Calculator.

    So thanks for the link.

    And I know of NO Obama tax cuts. Some credits, but no cuts.

    Perhaps you can share some details?????


    From the very site you linked. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    Even in the same top-level domain, and in a link on the very page you linked.  The Tax Calculator and the Tax Foundation.org seem to know about Obama-proposed tax cuts (more precisely: continuations of part of the Bush tax cuts).

    Did you even use their tax calculator?  It presents 3 columns of results, entitled:

    1. Bush Cuts Expire
    2. Bush Cuts Extended
    3. Obama's Budget

    Didn't notice that 3rd column?  You should try the calculator you were so happy to find, and see how much Obama proposes to take out of the mouths of your starving children.

    The "Obama's Budget" links to this text:
    Obama's Budget Proposal

    President Obama proposed in his Budget last February that Congress allow some of the Bush tax cuts to expire while extending others into 2011. He introduces a few reforms of his own, including an extension of the making-work-pay credit, which Congress seems ambivalent about extending but which we include. This column shows how much income tax you will owe in 2011 under this scenario. For detailed information visit this page.

    Note: The President's Budget includes an "AMT patch" for 2011, exempting more taxable income from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). This calculator assumes an AMT patch for all three scenarios.

    The breakdown by tax bracket is here, and it shows Obama's budget proposal doesn't start to exceed the Bush tax rates until AGI - I assume it's AGI - exceeds $175,050 (Single), $235,550 (Married/Jointly) or $214,850 (Head of Household).


    I'd love to see the R's fillibuster ANYthing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    if just once the dems called their bluff, it would be so nice (but the dems only seem capable of calling their own bluffs before the game even begins). but do not be surprised if the dems, yet again, have their aces handed to them. i don't know how, i can't imagine why, but NOTHING would surprise me about this bunch of spineless imagination vacuums.

    Actually, they have filibustered (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lacey on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    The Senate has seen a record number of filibusters during this session. But don't let facts get in the way of a good gripe. The Republicans have used all sorts of procedural tricks to slow down or kill legislation. That's been their goal the entire time.

    Yes, we will see. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:20:37 PM EST
    By the time the Republicans paint the fearsome picture of Democrats "increasing taxes"-- on the "most successful of the American Dream" as but a warm-up for the socialistic next steps for everyone else, and doing so at a time of economic downturn, so as to prevent stimulation via trickle down (e.g. janitors at the Mercedes dealership will suffer)  etc. etc.,, the Democrats will become rattled.

    And, if President Obama does a disappearing act leaving refutations and rebuttals to the unlovable Timothy Geithner, for example, we will be lucky if the Bush tax cuts are not only extended but also deepened. Or, a big trade off will be made on another pet, the estate tax.  Moreover, the inelegant reaction to Ms Sherrod in the face of media wingers does not augur well for forceful response to the inevitable disinformation campaign of Fox et.al.  Yes, we will see.  

    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    If the Democrats don't end up caving to Republicans on this issue I will be very surprised.

    I read that this afternoon too (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    And was struck by the worry that the very people we will be depending on the keep the economy strong, social security afloat, etc. in the future are the ones whose education we are most neglecting now. We are setting ourselves up for major disaster in that regard, and I can't help but think the various 'cat food commission' social security destruction plans might be taking that into account when they talk euphemistically about 'not saddling future generations', when the same people are making sure future generations will not be educationally equipped for the future. Haves v have nots- private schools, private retirements, gated communities. I think the design is in place.  

    Everyone who thinks this is about (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    doing the right thing for the millions of tax-payers who are already being squeezed by the economy, and not about what's-the-least-we-can-do-and-still-claim-"we-tried"-so-that-we-can-keep-these-nice-jobs-we-have, start holding your breath.

    The rest of us will be standing by to revive you when you pass out waiting.

    And, once again, it generally isn't a good negotiating tactic to announce in advance what your fallback plan, unless, as I suspect, this is really more about message than it is about action and accomplishment.

    This will be another stellar example of "hey, it's better than nothing!"

    Since when is cutting taxes the right thing to do? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    Americans, across all income brackets, carry the smallest tax burden of almost any developed nation. Just because the top tax bracket in the US pays criminally low taxes doesn't mean the less well off shouldn't have their comparatively-low taxes raised too.
    People complain about the quality of our government services in the US but, in my view, we are getting exactly what we pay for.

    And prove to me that increasing my FIT (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    will do anything to help me and my family have a better life.

    Take your time. You'll need it.


    Of course (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:48:37 PM EST
    when it's only about YOU and YOUR family having a better life - on ultra conservative Fantasy Island, where the only communities are gated ones - better schools, roads, bridges etc and an equitable, efficient use of economic resources - are all irrelevant issues compared to non-native born Presidents attempting to impose Sharia Law in the U.S and treehuggers perpetrating pseudo-scientific hoaxes about climate change..

    I thought you would at least applaud (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    Lower deficits.

    You didn't say cut spending.. (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    See the difference??

    Well for one (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by dead dancer on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 07:20:18 AM EST
    That border u want so desperately CLOSED.

    Takes money buddy, and lots of it.


    I will spend for that and (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    cut otherwise.

    Commonsense, buddy, seems to escape you.

    BTW, who leads when you dance?



    You might try and state your question clearly then (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by dead dancer on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    Not to mention that cutting just doesn't seem to be on option with either party.

    So get a clue, or some common sense, or just go .... ....

    And as if u really cared - Posada


    Rebuild their own communities???? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    Whatever happened to "out of many, one?"

    And "effete neoconservative snobs like you."

    "Gated communities?"


    This isn't HI, Donald.


    Increasing my FIT... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:22:44 PM EST
    might get my bush doctor locked up...to hell with that.  Abolish the DEA and end the occupations, then I'll know Uncle Sam is seriously hard up for cash...till then I'll take a tax cut.  It will get spent.  

    Or another one of those G-Dub $600 jams...best thing he ever did, a little kickback for the racketeered.


    i think that would make a great t-shirt slogan: (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    "hey, it's better than nothing!"

    with obama and the dem's pictures over it.


    above it, not over it! geez (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Hooverism (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 05:07:42 PM EST

    Herbert Hoover raised the income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans from 25% to 65% in a severe economic downturn.  Apparently, old Herbert has become the patron saint of Democrat party economic policy.

    Hoover again.. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:12:16 PM EST
    Always on the same page, always on message. Like a swarm of insects.

    How does this work exactly: do some ex-Dartmouth Review twits sit up writing this stuff - in this case, "try to get people to associate tax increases on the wealthy with the Great Depression" - at which time, marching orders become for you and Jim and every talk radio host in the country to reflexively parrot it for the next few weeks?

    I'd be interesting to see a number for how many times 'the swarm' throws out this tax increase = Hoover canard/mantra in the next couple of weeks..

    Forget in-depth discussion, the idea is to get the teabagging folks at home riled up about the equivalent (rhetorically and intellectually) of economic death panels.  


    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:43:47 PM EST
    that wouldn't be the case, if the teaching profession in this country hadn't been taken over by the radical left and tenured radicals in the sixties..But it should be noted that if FDR hadn't known Chamberlain and influenced him to appease Hitler, Clinton wouldn't have botched the capture of Bin Laden and 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

    Some day that disturbing fact (none dare call it conspiracy), uncovered by conservatives, will itself be codified in our history books, with the state of Texas proudly leading the way..


    You saying what.... in depth discussion? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:46:44 PM EST

    I thought I'd (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:06:21 PM EST
    condense as many of your startling insights into one post as I could.

    Just for some comic relief.


    I see that I have wounded your tender feelings (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    by pointing out that you are totally incapable of debating and always go the personal insult.

    But hey, we all know that.

    Wait! I know, I'm a racist because I don't want illegal immigrants taking Americans and legal immigrant's jobs.


    My tender feelings (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    acclimated to your warm-over talk radio swill three years ago..

    Im just wondering if you'd be promoting hollow earth expeditions here if Hannity talked about it the night before..


    The point is. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:57:22 PM EST

    Tax rates impact economic activity.  That should not too hard to understand.  BTW, I've known about Hoover's counterproductive economic policies long before there was a Fox News.

    But not before (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    The National Review, I bet.

    "Impact economic activity" is quite a long way from this particular tax increase = Herbert Hoover's economic policies = equals here comes the liberal-caused Great Depression.


    But not before (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 07:15:26 PM EST
    The National Review, I bet.

    "Impact economic activity" is quite a long way from this particular tax increase = Herbert Hoover's economic policies = equals here comes the liberal-caused Great Depression.


    "Caused" is a strawman (none / 0) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:23:13 PM EST
    A Treasury Department (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    rife with folks who thought Ayn's cabana boy Greenspan's hind parts smelled like Channel No 5 during the Clinton years; (a mindset which probably hasn't changed as much as many here would've liked).

    So you're claiming that these people know full well that this approach has a high likelihood of further weakening the economy, yet, after considerable time for reflection, they're recommending that dangerous policy course anyway?


    The tax increases of 1932 were regressive, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:13:06 AM EST
    and there is the problem.  For someone earning $6,000 in 1931, the marginal income tax rate was 3%.  In 1932 it tripled to 9%.

    Someone with a fabulous income of $50,000 saw their marginal tax rate go from 18% to 31% those same years.

    The tax increase during the Hoover Administration made things worse because it took more money from the people who would have spent the largest portion of their income.


    Your comparsion is too (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    simplistic. For starters it doesn't factor in the population increases, size of the groups, etc.

    Your criticism is too vague and simplistic (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    The US Population - an estimate in non-census years - went from 124,039,648 in 1931 to 124,840,471 in 1932.

    Since the average household income was under $2,000, we could consider the $0 to $4,000 bracket to cover a huge portion of the population.   In that bracket, the 1932 taxes were 267% of what they hade been in 1931.

    I don't have a figure for the number of standard deviations from average income, nor how many people were in brackets above $8,000 per year - where the tax rates were increased by smaller multipliers than those $8,000-and-below brackets.

    The tax increase of 1932 was extremely regressive, which made the recession worse.


    Nice attempt but no roses (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:24:51 PM EST
    Your point is that the Hoover taxes were regressive but the Obamie increases won't be.

    To be believable the claim should take in current population, housing cost, % spent on food, etc.


    OK, taking into consideration the (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    ...current population, housing cost, % spent on food, phase of the moon, number of angels that can fit into a cubic furlong and whatever other deflection detail you might create:

    The Hoover-era tax increases made the recession worse, largely  because they took most money away from the high-velocity-of-money population.


    We understand that (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:40:47 PM EST
    Now show us that a tax increase NOW won't do the same thing.

    It also took money (none / 0) (#66)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 11:46:40 AM EST

    from those that would hire a new employee.

    In India.. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    So everyone who would get a tax increase (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    was planning on hiring a new employee from their own salary/etc next year?

    No (none / 0) (#76)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    Just the people who file personal income taxes as a small business.

    But don't trust me.  How about one of Obama's own?

    Tax increases are highly contractionary...The large effect stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment...[the finding is] strongly significant..highly robust.

    Christine Romer - WH Economic Advisor - June 2010



    Not all, only some (none / 0) (#82)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:35:02 PM EST

    In any case, small business owners effectively hire out of their own salary.

    Does the estae tax (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    effect when you die? Did Steinbrenner die this year because there is no estate tax this year?

    lol (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    Do you think he is still alive?

    The Republicans should demand (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    an investigation!

    Probably not (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:01:35 PM EST

    OTOH, it probably pays for lots of lawyers to structure assets to avoid the tax as much as possible.  Talents that presumably would serve society better in another capacity.

    Perhaps the government should take 55% of every family business on the death of the founder.  If that's your you are welcome to campaign on it.

    BTW, Senator Kerry docked his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid $500,000 or so in Massachusetts' taxes.  Massachusetts tax greed drove the chandler and maintenance labor for that boat to another state.  Raising the cap gains tax can have similar results.


    Ummm... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by goldberry on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:27:11 PM EST
    ...the wealthy keep making the argument that if we cut their taxes, it will create new jobs.  But I keep seeing jobs go to China and India.  The evidence isn't there.  
    OTOH, they seem to be bent out of shape over the deficits and this is a perfect opportunity for them to put their money where their mouths are.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:40:01 AM EST
    the evidence is there that cutting personal income taxes worked for Kennedy, Regan and G Bush.

    How many jobs (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lacey on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    How many jobs did GWB's tax cuts create?

    What was the % unemployment? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    And high unemployment... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Lacey on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    is the result of some future tax hike on the wealthy? No, it's because the right wing established an economic system that was unsustainable. And, much like when this happened before (see 1920s), the entire system came crashing down. But if you want to ignore the role that Bush played in this go right ahead.

    If you can't answer the question (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    you can't answer.

    And Bush didn't create the CRA and tried to reign in Freddie and Fannie.


    I don't remember Bush making that effort. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jack E Lope on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    Did he wait until the middle of his second term, when the Republicans lost control of Congress, to start trying to do something about Freddie and Fannie?

    I remember reading a paper published by the New York Federal Reserve, about 2005 I think, which warned that subprime loans were creating risks that did not fit the assumptions investors make about mortgage loans.  It also pointed out that only about 3% of subprime loans they found were subject to the CRA - and the other 97% were bad business masquerading as community service.

    Here's something Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote in 2008:
    It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.


    Umm, we have had tax increases since Hoover (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    In fact the Clinton tax increases were following a recession (admittedly much milder) and did not hurt growth. Going back to that tax rate is not nearly as draconian as you imply with the Hoover comparisons.

    Actually the (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    economy was recovering before the election and then did a brief dip.

    Clinton was a lucky President. No wars, a huge technology boom and oil prices that gave us gasoline prices in the $1.00 range.

    Don't look now but it is gasoline prices that have zapped this economy starting in 2005 and working forward. The housing bubble was merely the straw that broke the economy's back.



    Yes, it was all luck that (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 10:40:38 AM EST
    he did not start unnecessary wars, and had an administration that card about and focused on technological advancement.

    I don't know who Clinton carded (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    and  I remember him doing noting for "technology."

    But he was a lot of fun.


    What did he note for technology? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    I do not remember any such thing, and I had not inhaled for at least 10 years before Clinton was sworn in.

    If you are going to make fun of typos....


    Sorry the devil made me do it (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    Now answer the question.

    Yea, no wars (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lacey on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    That whole thing in Kosovo was just some bad dream.

    40% (none / 0) (#84)
    by efm on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    They do.  In 2007 the top 1% paid 40.42% of all of the taxes.  

    All taxes, or 40.42% of Income Taxes? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jack E Lope on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:23:11 PM EST
    I assume you are using the NTU figure of 40.42% of personal income taxes, from here.

    About 36% of Federal revenues come from payroll taxes - which are paid on wages/salaries up to about $105,000, and not paid on wages/salaries beyond that amount, and not paid on other earnings such as dividends and capital gains.  The top 1% pay the tiniest portion of their income in payroll taxes.  

    About 45% of Federal revenues come from individual income tax, so if the top 1% of individuals are paying about 40% of individual income taxes, that amounts to about 18% of Federal tax revenue.  Hardly "40.42% of all the taxes".


    not that it bothers me, but (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    the hosts don't permit profanity.


    Correct (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:16:26 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#49)
    by msaroff on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:42:25 AM EST
    And the Greek model will work better? (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:49:04 PM EST

    And that just begs a question from me . . . (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:12:51 AM EST
    Greek model or clue?  ;)

    Doesn't MSNBC carry the riots in Greece?? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:41:41 AM EST
    Now that is a clue you can use.

    The tax increases planned are bad policy (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:26:26 PM EST

    What wouldn't be bad policy is for democrats to do what they're claiming to do and that is raise personal "income" taxes to 39.6% on the wealthy.

    Unfortunately as planned just letting them expire would mean many small business owners would have their taxes raised, their slim profit margins negated and they would fire workers to remain solvent.

    There is no liberal/conservative view on this.

    Both sides are talking past one another.

    Instead the tax code must be changed to exempt small business owners so they are not penalized by a tax on the "wealthy".

    Please disagree with me you heartless democrats!

    The mistake Republicans are making is saying all tax hikes are bad.  

    The bad tax hikes are those on business that will cause the loss of jobs.   These tax hikes will do that because they will be so broad and misguided.   We should collect more revenue from the rich but we shouldn't do it while penalizing the people that actually grown the economy.

    While I would argue 35% is plenty and the real problem is spending I'm not going to convince a bunch of socialist dems of that so I will concede that point.  However to go so far as to actually penalize small business owners because they can't afford to file taxes like a big corporation seems silly and counter productive and frankly very unprogressive.

    Socialist Dems? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jackcrow2001 on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    Hrmm socialist dems

    Of course Dems are socialist Derr Furer Limbaugh has declared it so, there is no point in using any portion of your own brain, Fox News will tell you what to think.

    Truth be told, if caring more about the average american citizen getting a fair break, rather than some Wall Street suit twisting the system into another ill-gotten fortune.  Well if that makes me a Socialist, so be it......  I'll take that name, you willing to take up the name of Facist?

    Later Days