If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   CBO: "Letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire is the least harmful thing to the economy we can do." So obviously, Congress will do the exact opposite   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 20
    More: Interesting, Congressional Budget Office, tax cuts  
•       •       •

1193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 10:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-09 11:43:59 AM
4 votes:

Problems for economy, in order of seriousness: (1) widening inequality and declining real wages, (2) high unemployment, (3) budget deficit.

- Robert Reich (@RBReich) November 9, 2012
2012-11-09 11:06:33 AM
4 votes:
Obama, and every Democrat, should pound on this point every time they're near a microphone from now through the end of the year.

Some points to hit:

The rates go back to what they were under Clinton, close to historic lows
People talk about reducing the debt, this is a step
Growth in income inequality since the tax rates were slashed in the 1980s
Clinton had a budget surplus when Bush II took office, before Bush slashed taxes, started two unfunded wars, and increased entitlement programs
Trickle down doesn't work, growth comes from a healthy middle class

Other?
2012-11-09 01:26:12 PM
2 votes:

Silly Jesus: Those quotes seem completely unrelated to you? His stated desire to have the rich pay more so that it can be redistributed to everyone else doesn't sound the least bit like Marx? I'm not arguing that he's similar to Marx in any other facet, but not seeing this similarity means that it is you with splooge in your eyes. Marx splooge, the best kind of splooge, because there's enough for everybody.


Describe for me a scenario wherein taxes paid by people both rich and poor are not "redistributed".

That's what the fark taxes are FOR. Any other way means either the Feds take money and don't spend it, or no one pays taxes and there is no Federal Government.

Progressive taxation is what Obama is talking about. It's how Adam Smith described taxes. It's how Ben Franklin described taxes. It's how most modern societies understand taxation to be fairest and most effective. So we're arguing about degrees of redistribution.

Which is why we have elections - to choose our Representation for these legislative arguments. Seems like the people (66% of whom think the rich should pay more, 50+% of whom voted for a man who said he'd "raise" taxes on the rich) are in favor of redistribution.
2012-11-09 12:27:31 PM
2 votes:

BigBooper: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Emposter: Then the GOP is faced with opposing a cut for lower and middle class earners.

They've done it before and they'll do it again. Being seen working with the President is now more toxic to them than being seen raising taxes on the lower and middle classes.

^This

Any Republican that works with the President, or compromises in any way is labeled a rino, and is challenged by the tea party in the next party primary. That's where we got all the "legitimate rape" candidates this election cycle. The extremists in the Republican party have taken over, and are purging any moderates. In the end this destroy the Republican party.

Of course they may end up taking the nation down the shiater with them.


A few retiring Republicans have said they're quitting because they can't deal with the extreme partisanship and the extremists in their own party.

What we HAVEN'T seen, and what would be the coolest thing ever, is for a sitting Republican House member or Senator to snap and call out the Teapartiers and the extremists WHILE STILL SERVING.

"I called this press conference to denounce the extremism within my own party that puts partisanship ahead of the good of the country. I realize that I'm committing political suicide here, but I can no longer stand by and witness the destruction of this country at the hands of those who would choose political gain over the greater good....."

Damn unlikely, I know, but that would be awesome.
2012-11-09 11:40:29 AM
2 votes:

Lelo34: So....did Boner just flat out lie? He's holding a press conference where he says that the CBO reports that the MOST harmful thing the government can do is to raise taxes.

If this isn't outright lying, it's incredibly misleading and a HUGE sign that the Republicans didn't learn a goddamn thing from the election.


They suppressed the study which showed cutting rich peoples' taxes does less to stimulate growth than $5 handies in the alley behind the Kum-N-Go. It's been party dogma for 30-40 years that tax cuts stimulate growth. With the GOP still in control of the House, they're not likely to abandon dogma - it'll take a drubbing, a real sea-change election or two for them to come back to reality on taxes.

The only thing the GOP understands is defeat. For total understanding, we need to totally defeat them.
2012-11-09 11:22:04 AM
2 votes:

mgshamster: InmanRoshi: Well, that's it. There's no incentive left to be wealthy. Might as well walk away from the mansion and go lie down in a cot in some shanty in Cambodia shivering and sharting on yourself from dengue fever. Obama's pretty much made it the same existence.

I'm curious how the rich managed to survive when their tax rate was 92%.


I'm also curious why the right believe that wealth needs to be incentivized when WEALTH IS THE FARKING INCENTIVE.
2012-11-09 11:03:33 AM
2 votes:

JusticeandIndependence: I'm ready for the cuts to expire. Who's with me!


Let's the tax cuts expire. Then pass the Obama tax cut for the middle class. Boom. If Republican pull their usual shiat, then not only are they holding tax cuts hostage, they're indisputably and actively trying to implode the economy.

Obama has the GOP in the figure-4 over this. If Dems cave, it will be the most egregious and cowardly defeat in their history.
2012-11-09 11:00:33 AM
2 votes:

BigBooper: No, The Republican told me that letting the tax breaks expire on the richest Americans would destroy our economy; BILLIONS of jobs would be lost.

And since the Republicans wouldn't lie about something like that, the CBO is clearly wrong.


The republicans actually believed they had a lead going into election day when consensus among the experts said otherwise. Their inability to gather and interpret simple data makes their opinions worthless.
2012-11-09 10:55:53 AM
2 votes:
Only one side of the congress. Keep that in mind.
2012-11-09 04:36:19 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: I haven't looked into "the Carry." And I don't want to right this second because the point here can be made without that specific example. People have a problem with the rich "paying a lower tax rate." They have been fed this talking point and don't understand that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate FOR EVERYONE and that it's different from income tax.

The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"


If you don't understand the concept of "the Carry" you can't understand the issue. It is salary disguised as investment income. Romney has no personal money invested or at risk. He is paid from the carry from Bain based on overall profits. The exact same pot they pay the lowly employees from but Romney can pay 13% on that. Do you sorta understand? Romney has structured the carry in his benefits package with Bain.

Capital Gains loophole is stupid to begin with but Romney has found a loop hole to the loop hole through the carry.
2012-11-09 02:12:50 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: Dr Dreidel: Describe for me a scenario wherein taxes paid by people both rich and poor are not "redistributed".

The guy using his EBT card isn't redistributing anything to Bill Gates.


Ah, but he is. Gates pays a little more in taxes (as a percentage of income when compared with average-income people like you and I) so that this guy can get an EBT card and eat for the month. The guy uses that EBT card to buy goods and services, some of which come from Microsoft. That EBT cash is going right back to Gates (and/or the owners/CEOs of banks, grocery chains/stores, gas stations/energy companies, etc), it just rests for a few hours in the account of a guy who can't really afford bread after rent and utilities.

(Re)Distribution doesn't stop when money hits a poor guy. Poor people spend more of their income than rich people - they should be happy to make sure poorer people have more money to spend on their shiat! (Alternatively, one can distribute "wealth" without mailing a check or handing out currency. Management's profit is relative to the aggregate amount by which they're underpaying labor.)

That's what the fark taxes are FOR. Any other way means either the Feds take money and don't spend it, or no one pays taxes and there is no Federal Government.

I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."


Take it up with pretty much any non-Steve Forbes economist out there. From Adam Smith and Jefferson and Franklin to, yes Marx (who was a pretty good social theorist, if not a good economist) and Keynes, pretty much everyone of note agrees that rich people should pay more. Why? Marginal utility. (Also basic fairness, but "fair" isn't in the Constitution.)

Progressive taxation is what Obama is talking about. It's how Adam Smith described taxes. It's how Ben Franklin described taxes. It's how most modern societies understand taxation to be fairest and most effective. So we're arguing about degrees of redistribution.

I know he's talking about progressive taxation. Marx talked about it a lot too. It's a major plank of the Communist Manifesto. Just because famous people talked about it doesn't make it beyond criticism and a great and undeniable good.


It's also a major part of "The Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith. He's not just some bozo the libs trot out when we're feeling undertaxed, he's the father of modern economics. The fact that Jefferson and Franklin also favored that system suggest it's not as foreign or "communist-y" as you think (they predate Communism by about 100 years). Marx isn't the only one who thought about it.

Progressive taxation isn't beyond criticism, but you'll have to do a lot better than "It's not fair to rich people" or "Marx said it, therefore Communist."

Which is why we have elections - to choose our Representation for these legislative arguments. Seems like the people (66% of whom think the rich should pay more, 50+% of whom voted for a man who said he'd "raise" taxes on the rich) are in favor of redistribution.

I voted for Obama as well. I disagree with several of his policies, this being one of them, but I'm not insane.

And of course the poor, poor, pitiful, poor are going to be FOR having a greater share of the money in the government's piggy bank come from the evil rich. Using government to legally get your hands into the pockets of the wealthy isn't a new thing. The only problem with mob democratic rule is that eventually there will be more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it.


Assuming no one ever earns enough to make it out of the lower classes. JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and my great-grandfather were born in the poorer class and not a one was able to rise above that circumstance. How sad for them and the millions of others (like Craig Nelson) who also never made it out of poverty due to government assistance.

I think that we need to massively cut spending, starting with the military, and I'm not for raising taxes on anyone, but this nonsense of using the evil rich as a scapegoat for a class warfare narrative is getting absurd.

I agree. So?

You could tax them at a rate of 100% and it wouldn't put a dent in the problem that we are currently in. The rich have been demonized to the point that it's beneficial, vote wise, to say "let's tax them more" even though it solves nothing. It gets people frothing at the mouth and out to the polls, and that's what counts.

A brilliant reposte. So what if we taxed income over $250k (for joint filers) at 39.6%? (That's 4.6 cents extra on every dollar of income starting with the 250,001st. FYI.) I'll tell you - the Feds would have 4.6 cents extra for every dollar of income starting with the 250,001st. That's 4.6 cents for every dollar that we wouldn't otherwise have.

When you pay your bills, do you never pay beyond the minimum payments? My car payment is ~$150/month, but I usually pay ~160, 170. Am I not making an appreciable difference in my balance? Are you telling me that my overpayments won't make my balance shrink faster?

Or are you gearing up for a "b-b-b-but growth!"? Because Clinton's rates led to growth (or at least didn't stop growth from happening).

Like I said, arguing is fair. Just, you know, have good arguments against that aren't the same tired trickle-down-works-because-I-say-it-works garbage.

// interest has already been calculated, but I'd be saving even more if they recalculated every year or every month
2012-11-09 01:42:20 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: using the evil rich as a scapegoat


You're the only one in here using that phrase.
2012-11-09 01:24:22 PM
1 votes:
Best part Forever?

President Obama doesnt have to lift a finger to let them expire. Just ignore the republican diaper pail and wait them out.

Best Part FOREVER!
2012-11-09 01:05:16 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: Hey, self congratulating circle jerkers, here's what the CBO actually said.

If the tax cuts are extended to EVERYONE...This means the poor, poor, pitiful poor AND the evil rich, the growth is 1.5%
If the tax cuts are extended only to the poor, poor, pitiful, poor, and allowed to increase on the evil rich, the grown is 1.25%

It's actually WORSE to tax the evil rich more.

Also...

[gulagbound.com image 800x492]


The only circle jerk around is the ignorant bubble people like yourself who keep trying to equate a center right president with Karl Marx.

You idiots have splooged so much into each others eyes you can no longer discern the reality in front of your faces.
2012-11-09 11:37:39 AM
1 votes:

JusticeandIndependence: BigBooper: JusticeandIndependence: I'm ready for the cuts to expire. Who's with me!


Bring it on!

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 203x241]

The problem is that if nothing is done, the middle class is going to take it up the a** hard. The rich can afford to pay the higher taxes. The middle class on the other hand can't afford to pay several thousand dollars in new taxes. If the Republicans block any compromise to protect the 1%, the economy will tank, and we will probably end up in a new recession.

I wonder what the mid term elections in 2014 look like if that happens.

/the term "blood bath" comes to mind

Just how much do you think the Bush tax cuts were?


There's more than the Bush Tax cuts on the line here. The Republicans are holding up a fix to the AMT, and were also looking at the automatic cuts hitting at the same time. I can't find the farking article of course, but one that I read put the cost on a family of four earning $75,000 at about $4,000 in new taxes. CBO forecasts a jump in the unemployment rate to 9.1%; costing the economy 800,000 lost jobs.

I'll keep looking for that article
2012-11-09 11:23:23 AM
1 votes:

mgshamster: InmanRoshi: Well, that's it. There's no incentive left to be wealthy. Might as well walk away from the mansion and go lie down in a cot in some shanty in Cambodia shivering and sharting on yourself from dengue fever. Obama's pretty much made it the same existence.

I'm curious how the rich managed to survive when their tax rate was 92%.


I've worked since I was 15, and even with a Master's degree, I can't afford anything but a small house. Can I have your mansion after you abandon it?
2012-11-09 11:23:03 AM
1 votes:
So....did Boner just flat out lie? He's holding a press conference where he says that the CBO reports that the MOST harmful thing the government can do is to raise taxes.

If this isn't outright lying, it's incredibly misleading and a HUGE sign that the Republicans didn't learn a goddamn thing from the election.
2012-11-09 11:22:03 AM
1 votes:

jasimo: Obama, and every Democrat, should pound on this point every time they're near a microphone from now through the end of the year.

Some points to hit:

The rates go back to what they were under Clinton, close to historic lows
People talk about reducing the debt, this is a step
Growth in income inequality since the tax rates were slashed in the 1980s
Clinton had a budget surplus when Bush II took office, before Bush slashed taxes, started two unfunded wars, and increased entitlement programs
Trickle down doesn't work, growth comes from a healthy middle class

Other?


I would make it a point to put it squarely in congress' lap. They can't screw the whole thing up and blame him for "lack of leadership." If the automatic cuts happen, everyone in the country will suffer.
2012-11-09 11:20:45 AM
1 votes:

Boxcutta: More like the liberal budget office.


Unless they agree with you....


Link
2012-11-09 10:59:57 AM
1 votes:
I'm ready for the cuts to expire. Who's with me!


Bring it on!

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report