Barack Obama has long supported the idea of extending the “Bush” tax cuts for 98 percent of the population. The highest-earning 2 percent, meanwhile, will see their top tax rates go back up to where they were in the 1990s.
The Washington Post has a story today (9/8/10)that more or less explains this fact. The headline of the story is “Obama Set Against Bush Tax Cuts.” Is the Republican National Committee suggesting headlines for the paper?
Meanwhile, the New York Times has a similar preview of Obama’sannouncement today, headlined “Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts.” I suppose this depends on what one means by “compromise.” Obama has long supported renewing many of the tax cuts in question–a position Republicans have so far rejected–but that doesn’t seem to qualify.
Further muddying up the issue is the fact that Obama is proposing an “election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.” The Times goes on to note that the White House is supporting corporate tax policies that have “longstanding Republican and corporate support.”
So he’s pushing policies designed to appeal to Republicans and corporations–but he’s refusing to “compromise”?
I have never understood how Dems can feel that high taxes are a good thing for the economy.Then they turn around and say they will extend tax cuts- because they feel for 98%(in this case)it is a good thing to keep those taxes low.High taxes bad.Low taxes good.Hmmmm what party is it that always says that?Of course BAM believes the 2% that are actually still in a position to ignite the economy(those dirty rich) shall be taxed till ……… well till that flame of entrepreneurial spirit goes out for good.Good thinking genius.
As Obama’s outgoing economic council leader said on her way back to Berkley, tail planted firmly between her legs……”We were mystified going into this ,and I am just as mystified as i leave what makes the economy do the things it does”.Thank you madam.You have beggard us and our children …and their children.And you and that unqualified mess at the top never had a clue.Well unlike most of Obamas academia eggheaded cabinet posters , who never spent a day in the private sector,you at least now have the guts to admit it.
the “compromise” the nyt is referring to is the gop letting the tax cuts stay in place for two more years in return for obama letting them go on forever. surprisingly! the president is against that.
“compromise” [verb]: when democrats are in power, do what the gop wants…when the gop is in power, do what the gop wants
ps: after doing the google [plus bing] , i find that the quote that michael e attributes to christina romer is fake [as usual]
Watching michael e struggle with basic economics and tax policy is like watching a starfish working with a can opener.
DEM can’t even Do NOTHING effectively! Let ‘Em EXPIRE!! After all, “we’re all in this together”!!!
Very funny, Jacques Cousteau, and right on, Woodward Burnstein. You Know Who is the most spectacularly ignorant poster I’ve ever encountered in any blog or at any site, and that’s saying something.
michael e.–High taxes bad for the lower classes because that money kept in their hands will be spent. In short, it will not remain in their hands or under the mattress. The wealthy, on the other hand, are notorious horders.
The extremely wealthy enjoyed 10 years of tax cuts, and DID NOT ignite the economy. Compare total net jobs created during Clinton’s presidency, 23 million, to the net jobs during Bush- a paltry 3 million. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month when he left office.
What were the taxes during these periods?
1993-1999- top rate 39.6% on over $125,000, (up to $141,575 in 1999)
2001 top rate 39.1% on over $148,675
2002, top rate 38.6% on over $153,525
2003- 35% on amount over $155,975 (These are the Bush tax cuts that, according to the act he signed, are set to expire in 2011. The rate will return to 38.6%.) President Obama suggests the top rate should apply only to those making over $250,000. It’s only on the amount that exceeds $250,000. They get continued “cut rate” on the first $250,000.
Just adding some established figures to the mix. If the Republicans truly cared about the deficit, they should be happy to have some additional revenue. And they could have voted for Pay as you go, but they did not!
Aw gee! Billionaires and millionaires will have to pay more taxes. What a shame, NOT!
Dennis…stop that- you just cant believe what you wrote.Jacquesi-baby that starfish joke….i think the tonight show flopped wit dat one.W and B check what she did say.Look at the exact quote if that helps your overly ordered need for proof(there is a clinical name for that),I think I correctly outlined a stunning aspect her speech.She was a lost little soul – The poor poor Pinkus.Tim the honor of your sweet pile of loveliness is always mine.
So You can throw your class warfare about all you want.It is always the same tripe from the liberal end of the couch.Sooner or later you are going to have to say the words that this is now Obama’s economy.Not how Clinton gleaned rewards from his predecessors(Martha) , or how Bush suffered from his- or Obama his.Cut the whining.The game is all Obama’s and his majority.Has been for a long time now.How is it all working out for ya????I think is is commonly known as “IN the crapper” folks.
I still like my idea.Anyway One of my ideas.It is a mix of Liberitarian common sense.Liberal insanity.And me and my bud Jack…Jack Daniels!
Flat tax……..but if you want to punitively tax/punnish those making over 250 thou, up to Billionaires- have the balls to do it. Honestly and openly.In this way………You who make thirteen grand a year go to buy an apple.Show you w4 and it costs you 25 cents.I show mine and it costs me twenty times that.Bill Gates well he is paying a thousand for that apple.It would be configured to be an exact match to Obama’s Tax proposed levels lets say.Highway robbery yes- But open for all to see.No more sneaking into the IRS where things are done behind close door similar to a colon procedure .Government does not have to stab that dirty filthy rich hoarder for you.Every shopkeeper can do it!All on his own.Oh yeah and any politician should be paying 99% due to his profiting from our vote, and the fame derived there in(Clinton).His 100 mil worth looks a lot less at 99% scraped off the top doesn’t it?FEeling better about yourselves yet?Im thinking of writing a book on gov tax jinxes.Gonna call it “Taxes should be higher for those who believe in them.” You dolts can pay above your fair share now you know.Don’t wait for my book to show you how.And rich folks who never gave shit to charity like Obama and Bidon are gonna be judged before a panel who will simply take directly from their bank accounts- what say ….oh what George Bush or McCain gave for the last ten years.Google it.See how giving your golf pro en chief and VP Booby Bubbnis B. gave.Damn near nothing.Didnt mama ever teach you hypocrites that redistribution starts at home?Yeah gotta get started on that book.So many good ideas.Where is ol Jack?
P.s To Jacques Cousteau
Give a listen to Dr walter Williams ( professor of economics) if I seem so off the mark.He knows a thing or two …or three or four.You will HAAAAAAAAAATE him of course.
WP and NYT aren’t the only ones who weighed in on this issue on that morning. Sadly, NPR’s Morning Edition followed suit with two back to back stories, one that questioned the wisdom of modifying/extending/canceling the Bush tax cuts in an election cycle and another that added up all the taxes a yuppy couple (two employed engineers) paid in a year. Nowhere was the option of raising taxes even mentioned.
Further adding to the suspicion of undo influence, the local Seattle station that ran the pieces (KUOW) mentioned at the break they were partially supported by The Public Notice, a disinformation service run by a former Bush employee.
Perry…By” Former Bush employee” do you mean that as a red flag to all Libs. Danger danger Will Robinson turn off your computer.Hint…..Former employees have of an ex prez have little power.Now if he was an active employee of Obamas …Now that is scary.Thanx for the heads up.I read about them(The public notice) and just signed up. Their mission statement is a little different than you presented it.
Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. One way to increase tax revenue without raising any individuals’ tax rate is to bring jobs back to the U.S.A. In other words, increase the U.S. tax base. If a product is to be sold in the U.S., it must be manufactured in the U.S. Stop the tax breaks or exemptions that benefit just a few. The U.S. has a huge debt that needs to be addressed now. We need to pay the debt, not just the interest on it.
John I get a sneaking suspsic I probably would not agree with you on a good many things but……. there are a few things you said that I am happy appeared on this FAIR blog under your pen.”One way to increase tax revenue…is to bring jobs back to the USA”And also …….”the huge dept that must be addressed now”DING DING DING right you are John.BUT how to do that?To bring jobs back we must CUT taxes.ESPECIALLY CORPORATE!!!!We must stop attacking wealth and instead embark on a removal of government heavy hands to recreate wealth.Reinvigorate the private sector in the same way.That John is the only way out of tis mess.And we have a president who is diametrically opposed to that.Cutting taxes is like a cross to Dracula for this man.