BREAKING: President Obama Open to Extending Bush Tax Cuts for All Incomes

[theeedude]

Wouldn't we still have a deficit even if we let the tax cuts for the rich sunset?
Hell even if we let all tax cuts for all incomes sunset wouldn't we still have a huge deficit?

Sure, we are going to run deficits in this economy, doesn't mean we shouldn't be prudent about it. Tax cuts to middle class get spent on goods and services, so they are stimulus. Tax cuts for rich get saved, maybe eventually invested, probably somewhere in emerging markets.

 

[PeshakJang]

LOL spending cuts during a recession. LOL.

Yeah, the German and British economies have been spiraling downward since they started cutting back......

 

[QuantumPion]

LOL spending cuts during a recession. LOL.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

--Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the Treasury, 1938.

 

[nobodyknows]

you're reality challenged. a working couple with a family could easily make >250k. And still struggle. Taxes are earned income confiscation. It never belonged to the tax junkies to begin with.

LMAO! Anybody making over 250K/year that is struggling and has some problems won't find their problems being solved simply by extending the tax cut.

 

[lupi]

What did yall expect, he just got the biggest election night ass whipping since the holy father of all entitlements was in office.

 

[her209]

Are you insane? Republicans, and even the conservative democrats we have now, hold all the cards. They can refuse to extend tax cuts for under $250k, and it looks like they're just standing on principle. "EXTEND TAX CUTS FOR ALL" is a GREAT slogan. Look how well they are doing.

If Obama vetoes a bill to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to all, because he's standing on principle to extend only for under $250k, Republicans will bludgeon him with it for 2 years and he will lose in 2012.

Which is why it was stupid to put off the vote to extend the tax cuts for those making under $250k until after the election. Thanks Harry.

If Obama vetoes the bill that would extend the tax cuts for all and the economy is doing better in 2012, then will the Republicans campaign on "It could have been better."

 

[Craig234]

What did yall expect, he just got the biggest election night ass whipping since the holy father of all entitlements was in office.

Not exactly. It was a major victory for the Republicans (and major loss for the country), but even with that you exaggerate a bit.

It was the largest House change since 1948 - but even the 1994 election switched both the House AND the Senate to Republicans, a bigger 'change' really in effect.

When you look at a couple elections, 2006 and 2008, there was a huge change of both branches of Congress, too, the other direction for the Democrats.

This was big, but it wasn't as historic as you think.

You are taking the one number on House seats and exaggerating it to the whole election.

 

[Joemonkey]

you're reality challenged. a working couple with a family could easily make >250k. And still struggle. Taxes are earned income confiscation. It never belonged to the tax junkies to begin with.

you're the reality challenged one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Household income >$250k = 1.5% of the population

National median is $44,389 HOUSEHOLD, not individual...

maybe you have a different definition of "easily" than 98.5% of the population?

 

[Darwin333]

So much for balancing the budget. Even with spending cuts, it will now just be that much harder to accomplish.

Yup, that extra $70 billion a year woulda really cut into the $1.5 trillion deficit. The entire amount the CBO estimated, and the number Obama often used, the tax increase would have generated over a decade would pay for approximately half of just this years deficit.

I am all for taking whatever steps we can to move towards a balanced budget but lets at least have an honest discussion. We are talking about 5ish percent at most and I wouldn't even consider that slightly significant. Get back to me when you get to 20% or so.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yup, that extra $70 billion a year woulda really cut into the $1.5 trillion deficit. The entire amount the CBO estimated, and the number Obama often used, the tax increase would have generated over a decade would pay for approximately half of just this years deficit.

I am all for taking whatever steps we can to move towards a balanced budget but lets at least have an honest discussion. We are talking about 5ish percent at most and I wouldn't even consider that slightly significant. Get back to me when you get to 20% or so.

Let me get this straight. When we're looking at things like health reform, the value has to be given for 10 years.

But when it's tax cuts for the rich, you say "it's only $70 billion per year!!" to minimize the value.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yeah, the German and British economies have been spiraling downward since they started cutting back......

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ill-be-fatal-for-economy-capital-reports.html

 

[PeshakJang]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ill-be-fatal-for-economy-capital-reports.html

His opinion is noted. I guess Germany disagrees though.

 

[fskimospy]

That only works with a static scoring - if you literally believe that all money not seized by government disappears. If you can stretch your mind to believe that some of this money will be spent by individuals, then that money will generate corporate profits and paychecks, some of which will be returned in taxes. If you can believe that some of that money will be saved, where others may borrow it and create growth in the economy (i.e. buying products and hiring workers), then that money will generate corporate profits and paychecks, some of which will be returned in taxes. If you can believe that some of that money will be invested, funding corporate growth and spurring purchasing of products and hiring workers, then that money will generate corporate profits and paychecks, some of which will be returned in taxes. If conversely you believe that $4 trillion will be stuffed into mattresses over the next ten years, then your statement would be true.

By your reasoning, government should simply triple taxes and everything would be fine, since by a static scoring government may take any amount of money from the public without changing their spending habits. By that standard, North Korea would be the wealthiest nation on Earth.

The CBO, when analyzing those effects from tax cuts estimates that tax cuts at most return approximately 10% of their cost to federal coffers in increased tax receipts through economic growth. I'm not sure if that was already included in the estimates I got, but if you would prefer to take the best case scenario then the Bush tax cuts will only contribute to $3.6 trillion of an $8.6 trillion deficit. This would only be about 41.8%.

 

[BoberFett]

Let me get this straight. When we're looking at things like health reform, the value has to be given for 10 years.

But when it's tax cuts for the rich, you say "it's only $70 billion per year!!" to minimize the value.

You've used this argument before and it's as stupid now as it was then. We're not talking about health care, we're talking about budget.

$70B is only a dent in a trillion dollar deficit. You want to do it for ten year? Fine. $700B is only a dent in a $10T deficit.

Is that better?

 

[Balt]

Yup, that extra $70 billion a year woulda really cut into the $1.5 trillion deficit. The entire amount the CBO estimated, and the number Obama often used, the tax increase would have generated over a decade would pay for approximately half of just this years deficit.

I am all for taking whatever steps we can to move towards a balanced budget but lets at least have an honest discussion. We are talking about 5ish percent at most and I wouldn't even consider that slightly significant. Get back to me when you get to 20% or so.

Honestly, if you want to make that argument, then we should never bother to cut back spending on anything because it will only make a dent. Unless you want to advocate just completely scrapping Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, and the DoD completely, you aren't going to find a magic pill that is going to take care of the deficit all by itself.

 

[nyker96]

Yay, more tax cuts without spending cuts (unless you think R's are going to cut spending, LOL). Hurray for even higher deficits!

I;m willing to forgo my $300 tax cuts, take it, don't extend my share of bush tax cut. use my money to close the budget.

 

[Zebo]

Been saying BlackBush for 3 years now, yet another affirmation despite what left and right thinks.

 

[Patranus]

I;m willing to forgo my $300 tax cuts, take it, don't extend my share of bush tax cut. use my money to close the budget.

You are actually more than welcome to pay more in taxes than you are legally required to pay, so if you really mean that, nothing is going to stop you.

(Not holding my breath)

 

[Jhhnn]

you're reality challenged. a working couple with a family could easily make >250k. And still struggle.

Easily? really? and "struggle"?

How does any family in the top 2% of incomes "struggle" to make ends meet, anyway? Damn, makes me wonder how the top 2% didn't starve in the pre-Reagan years... when they paid much higher tax rates.

Or are you claiming that high earners are really, really stupid?

 

[blackangst1]

you're the reality challenged one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Household income >$250k = 1.5% of the population

National median is $44,389 HOUSEHOLD, not individual...

maybe you have a different definition of "easily" than 98.5% of the population?

Thats a 2004 number. National median household income in 2008 is $52,029

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

 

[alkemyst]

Easily? really? and "struggle"?

How does any family in the top 2% of incomes "struggle" to make ends meet, anyway? Damn, makes me wonder how the top 2% didn't starve in the pre-Reagan years... when they paid much higher tax rates.

Or are you claiming that high earners are really, really stupid?

the defense is they have to buy that million dollar home and $160k in cars to 'fit in'.

 

[Patranus]

Easily? really? and "struggle"?

How does any family in the top 2% of incomes "struggle" to make ends meet, anyway? Damn, makes me wonder how the top 2% didn't starve in the pre-Reagan years... when they paid much higher tax rates.

Or are you claiming that high earners are really, really stupid?

Apparently you don't understand how the majority of small businesses operate.

 

[Throckmorton]

You've used this argument before and it's as stupid now as it was then. We're not talking about health care, we're talking about budget.

$70B is only a dent in a trillion dollar deficit. You want to do it for ten year? Fine. $700B is only a dent in a $10T deficit.

Is that better?

Great, so will you also say that the "cost" of healthcare reform, $1 trillion, is only a dent in a $10T deficit?

 

[Jhhnn]

Apparently you don't understand how the majority of small businesses operate.

Apparently, you really don't have anything to say, right?

Small business must be different, somehow, than it was pre-Reagan, at least in the right wing echo chamber...