Obama Likely To Retain Tax Cut For The Wealthy
November 23rd, 2008, 10:31 AM EST
I wonder if all those who slammed Obama for wanting to “raise taxes” will applaud him if he delays his promise to rescind the Bush tax cuts on upper income Americans. Obama adviser Bill Daley, the former Clinton Commerce secretary, on “Meet the Press”, says this seems “more likely than not.” I’m straining to hear applause from stage right.
And Campaign strategist David Axelrod was asked on “Fox News Sunday” if tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule and the response was, “Those considerations will be made.“ That means taxes would stay as they are until at least 2011, with no attempt to legislate an earlier end to the tax sunset clause.
Hang loose on this. I don’t believe it’s a “done deal” that he will just allow them to expire. From his economic plan, seeping out from other sources, you rich guys may still be on the hook.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
I hope these tax cuts for the wealthy are not retained as it was one of the major talking points of Obama’s campaign and one of the big reasons (I imagine) many people voted for him. Also hanging on to Lieberman is very disturbing, not because of his ability to do or not do his job (which may also be in question to some), but because of his stance on the war in Iraq. Although he seems to lack any fundamental commitment to principle so maybe we’re safe.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
How could this possibly help anyone except the rich?
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
This guy is not as bad as we thought. Maybe he bumbed his head, or Alah came to him in his sleep. Either way, raising taxes during a recession will not create jobs.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I was really surprised to find this article on Liberaland—Good Job Alan.
I wonder of those who voted for Obama because he was going to raise taxes on the rich will “slam” him now as Alan says.
Does this mean the tax cuts for the middle class won’t take effect till 2011?
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
More information. He will, in all likelyhood, allow the tax cuts to EXPIRE on schedule rather than try and repeal them early. He will be keeping his promise to eliminate them, but won’t take hasty action that might be extra trouble politically in the congress while knowing that they have limited life, anyway.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
One can only hope this is the case and the tax cuts remain in place. For everyone who questions why it is important to have wealth, just look at the ski resorts who are laying off workers because the wealthy are suffering in this economy. That will only get worse if he raises taxes.
No money to spend, the little guy is the one who suffers.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The middle class tax cut is still a major part of the economic package, Bryan, and that is what people voted for…not just to “git them thar rich folk”.
The middle class tax cut will be passed rather quickly and, likely, a part of a complete stimulus package being prepared for legislation.
Uplifted man…”Alah came to him in his sleep”???? Man, first, it’s Allah, and second….he’s Christian…sheesh…you must be channeling Sean Hannity, again.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Robert–A lot of people voted for Obama on his promise to “git them thar rich folk” since his tax cuts will not help the working middle class American.
This was a major issue during the debates and one he promised to addrees quickly to “Get the country moving forward”.
I am glad he saw that his plan will not work before putting in place.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Bryan, the middle class tax cut WAS a major point of the campaign. His renewing the 1999 level of taxes for people of the upper levels of income was designed to pay for the tax cut for the middle class. It wasn’t class warfare as the Republicans tried to make it. It was shear economics. Republicans attempted to make it sound like he wanted to cap success. Republicans atttempted to make hey over a comment made to your plumber friend that he would replace the lost revenue by taxing the rich more because it was fair to tax those who can more easily pay. Of course, that premis is designed into our tax structure already, however, tax loopholes allow rich people to avoid paying the designed amount that would make it fair….now, don’t give me that “they pay more than the middle class” argument since the comparison isn’t on per cent of income…it’s on straight dollars…and a dollar to dollar comparison will (by logic) always say that the richer pays more…..but, a per centage comparison says a completely different thing…and that is why Republicans don’t use it. Per centage of income-wise, the rich pay less than the poor.
So….it wasn’t class warfare, it was compensation paying for the tax cuts for the middle class….
and….it will expire soon enough.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Nice try…
They voted FOR their own tax cut. It wasn’t voting for the class warfare that the Republicans attempted to create. It was a myth, and the American people were smarter than the Republican hacks.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Bryan,
A lot of people voted for Obama on his promise to “git them thar rich folk”
Really? I didn’t talk to anyone who stated that as a reason for supporting Obama. Did you hear many Obama supporters state that as a reason, or is that something Rush and Hannity were telling you?
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Let me see if I have this right then Robert
Obama’s Tax Plan will save me–
$500 per year = $9.61 per week
Raise taxes on companies I depend on for Food,Gas,Electicity–etc
They will,as always , pass those tax increases to consumers.
Under Obama’s Tax Plan if thoses taxes are raised a conservative 6.75% –
$142.50 times a 6.75% tax increase = $9.61
If I spend more than $142.50 per week on the things I need to support my home,Food,Gas,Elecricity–I go in the hole.
I don’t have a better plan ,but his will not help the working class.
If it’s a cold winter or gas goes back up–Like alot of other Amreicans—-I’m screwed
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Cara–I don’t listen to Rush or Sean—get real.What were you listening too if you never heard anyone comment on taxing the rich?
It sure wasn’t our host here–or NBC/MSNBC/CBS/MoveOn/CNN/Obama.com/DNC/
Did you read or listen to anything before you voted?
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Hey Bryan,
Did you read or listen to anything before you voted?
Yea, I paid pretty close attention to this election - and I didn’t hear any Obama supporter say they wanted to ‘git them thar rich folks’, which I assume means to ‘punish the rich’. Of course the return to Reagan/Clinton level tax rates at the top couple tax levels were part of the Obama tax plan. Punishing the rich was not anything Obama supporters I talked to listed as reasons for their support of Obama.
I heard some right wing loons say such things, however.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Cara–You must not have paid too close attention–no offense.Everyone from Obama to Biden to Pelosi to Clinton to the average Democrat harped on increasing taxes on the rich.
Does “Spreading th Wealth’ or “It’s patriotic to pay taxes” ring a bell here?
If you don’t mind–tell us why you voted for Obama.
WFG–I agree—Vick is S.O.L. I think.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Bryan,
Everyone from Obama to Biden to Pelosi to Clinton to the average Democrat harped on increasing taxes on the rich.
You interpret returning to Reagan/Clinton tax levels on the top two marginal rates as ‘punishing the rich’, I really don’t think many (any?) Obama supporters looked at it that way. I think that was far right spin.
If you don’t mind–tell us why you voted for Obama.
Quite a few reasons, the #1 reason was keeping Palin as far away from the nuclear codes as possible. So, keeping the Earth from being destroyed by global thermonuclear war was my number one reason for supporting Obama.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Cara–How is that a spin?How is rasing taxes on anyone not a punishment.I need you to explain that one.
I didn’t ask why you voted against Palin.Like millions of others you let your hatred determine who you voted for?.Your agrguements are weak.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Bryan,
Like millions of others you let your hatred determine who you voted for?
Who do you think I hate? I don’t hate Palin, if that’s what you think - I’m sure she would make a fine neighbor. I like McCain very much, I was ready to be happy with either candidate (though I supported Obama). Once McCain chose Palin it was clear he either had very poor judgment or was not in control of his pick. Both were big disqualifiers for me.
But, some other reasons I supported Obama:
- The likely better relations between the US and the rest of the world
- Less chance for future unilateral wars
- Better chance for equalization of gay rights
- McCain had called for a freeze on science funding
- Palin thinks the world is 6000 years old, and as a candidate for governor supported teaching creationism in schools
- Obama’s impressive academic record
- Comparing Obama’s platform with McCain’s platform had me nodding my head a great deal more often when reading Obama’s plans vs. reading McCain’s plans
- McCain’s campaign was overwhelmingly negative, while Obama’s was not
How is rasing taxes on anyone not a punishment.I need you to explain that one.
I’m not sure how to explain that raising taxes is not punishment, it seems self evident to me. For example, when Reagan raised payroll taxes I did not see it as punishment, when Reagan revoked his income tax cuts, thus raising income tax, I did not see that as punishment. I think folks who have more disposable income have the ability and responsibility to pay more taxes.
I will pay more taxes under Obama’s tax plan. The majority of folks who would pay more taxes under Obama’s plan voted for Obama. I don’t think we were voting to be ‘punished’. We just felt it was fair tax policy.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Bryan,
AS Alan always says, how will you pay for everything, especially the war and the private contractors at cost plus, who we even paid to write and make textbooks that the Iraqis rejected?
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Brian,
Turn up your glasses.
The tax cuts for the rich will die on their own in 2010. We can wait. The middle class tax cut (given to 95% of working Americans based on income level) will be part of a massive economic stimulus package set for introduction shortly after President Obama takes office (like the same week). Legislative discussion and prepatory work is already being done.
Your whole discussion is old. The election is over. It is patriotic to pay some taxes…all patriots do…some just pay less than others…some patriots don’t pay any at all. That old, worn out argument used in the last election was settled on November 4th when the scare tactics all went “bye bye”. They were replaced with hope and change that we can (and will) live with (and thrive on, too).
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Cara–Your ‘dislike’ for Palin I’ll say then was part of yor decision.It shows.
(Better realtions)—Does that mean we should bow down and seek world approval?I don’t care what 200,000 screaming kids in Berlin think of our President no matter who it is.
(Less chance for War)–I agree with you there.I am concerned what,if anything,Obama will do if God forbid we have another9/11.He comments lead me to think he will dothing.
(Gay Rights)–I don’t care what happens in their bedroom,yet I don’t see Obama running to their rescue in Cal. either.
(Funding Freeze)–Seems we left out the freezing ALL spending.Don’t pick and choose here.
(Palin)—Psssssst–She wasn’t running for President
(Obama’s academics)—He is smart–never said he wasn’t
(Obama’s Plan)–I already proved his tax plan will not work for me and other middle class working Americans.
(Negative McCain)–Most of what I saw as based on Obama’s voting and personal record—show me the negative parts.
Any tax increase no metter who does it–is a punishment.
Lefty–If Congress cut out money for special interest such as a “Mouse Fart Study” (its real) Razor Bump Study,The Charlie Rangel Center,Bear Hibernation Study,
Bridge to Nowhere, and came up with a plan where EVERY American under the age of 65 paid taxes–and illegals —we wouldn’t need a tax increase.
(Ever heard McCain’s comments on earmarks?)
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Robert–I know the election is over.factcheck.org
No matter how old my discussion gets,it’s still fact.Show me how Obama’s Plan will work because I can’t see it.Somebody here show me some numbers please.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Bryan,
I don’t think any of it comes close to the plunder of the treasury and corporate welfare from Iraq.
I believe that transfering the wealth of the treasury to Bush’s cronies was a huge part of the war in Iraq, from the time they started planning in the ninties.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Bryan is sticking to the same old tired lines and nobody is going to get him away from his views. Perhaps he should just be ignored or politely told: “thank you for your imput”.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Your ‘dislike’ for Palin I’ll say then was part of yor decision.It shows.
I have stated dozens of times that Palin was McCain’s ‘disqualifier’ for me, I wasn’t trying to keep it secret or anything.
(Palin)—Psssssst–She wasn’t running for President
Many VPs end up serving as President - too much risk there for me. Plus she was so un-McCain like that it made it look like McCain wasn’t calling the shots on his own ticket.
I don’t care what 200,000 screaming kids in Berlin think of our President no matter who it is.
I don’t either. But I do think it will be easier to work with other nations once we have regained some respect we have lost through Bush’s unilateral actions. McCain would have improved international relations as well, but he would have (fairly or not) more of Bush’s ‘taint’ upon him than Obama.
He is smart–never said he wasn’t
You were asking for reasons why I voted for Obama, I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything. Thank God the election is over, and the good guys won.
Most of what I saw as based on Obama’s voting and personal record—show me the negative parts.
Seriously, I’m not looking to convince you of anything, just responding to your question of why I supported Obama. McCain’s ads were negative even into the final week, and even Fox commented on how unusual it was to continue negative even into the final week. Palin was whooping it up with her crowds saying things like Obama is pallin’ around with terrorists.
(Gay Rights)–I don’t care what happens in their bedroom,yet I don’t see Obama running to their rescue in Cal. either
Agree with you there - he also is not in favor of gay marriage. But on the McCain/Palin ticket you had Palin saying idiotic things like she ‘tolerates’ her gay friend. How big of her.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
..that’s INPUT
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I see the SPAM filter still lives on… anyway Bryan, maybe my response to your post will show up some day.
Perhaps he should just be ignored or politely told: “thank you for your imput”.
Budda - I agree that we really need to sit back and see what Obama does now, rather than re-fight the same election issues. (i.e. soon enough there will be new stuff to fight about)
However, I continue to be interested in hearing opposing views and having discussions with Bryan and others with whom I disagree.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Thanks Budda and Lefty for proving my points.”Bush did this,Bush did that” Is that all the two of you have to offer?
(The new word for today is FUTURE)-(Can you say FUTURE)
Lefty show me a transfer of wealth to Bush cronies and I’ll prove you wrong.Don’t tell me what Bush did.Show me what Obama’s going to do.Step up here ,there will be a test later.Budda like always–ignore facts.Same old tiredlines apply to my economic postion.Somebody PLEASE show me how the tax plan helps me.ANYBODY.Come on–think hard–you can do it.ANYBODY ? All I ask for is an explanation .Can nobody here come up with one? Alan Help !
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Um Cara I totally agree that we should always be open to opposing views and good discourse of topics, however, sometimes it becomes TEDIOUS and the minds eye glazes over. Perhaps that is their plan all along?
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Cuma—I agree –sit back and watch–and I for one hope he does good.I am not re-fighting an election issue,the elction is over.I am just proving my points,the ones that apply to me.
One thing nobody ever considers is that on Jan. 20th–Its Obama’s War/Obama’s Economy.Not Bush’s.
Nixon faced the same thing with Vietnam–so did Reagan with the Carter recession.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“Thanks for yor input”–is that code for
“I can’t answer Bryan’s questions” ?
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Well, there you go again….
When the first recession hit right after 2000, it was called “Clinton’s recession” by Bush. I think we’ll do the same…yeah, we’ll call it Bush’s Depression….just like it is Bush’s War…as Kosovo was dubbed Clinton’s war…no matter what.
Nixon kept the war going for his own egocentric foreign policy reasons…leverage used with China. No, it was Nixon’s war after 1970.
It was Carter’s recession in the 70’s…..then in 88, that was REagon’s recession.
This catastrophy is all Bush’s and it will take all of us to get us out of it.
No, this one will always belong to Bush and the boys.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
How about ” I don’t care to involve myself with the same old tired opinions”
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
So…the tax cuts will expire on their own in 2010 and the massive economic stimulus package is in the offing……great…go America.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“Lefty show me a transfer of wealth to Bush cronies and I’ll prove you wrong.”
…………………….
All the no bid, contracts at cost plus to donors.
The missing $9 billion in Iraq.
Remember the contractors of arriving carrying duffle bags to hold the money.
From the American Conservative:
” The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.”
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Budda—Thats what I said–I agree you shouldn’t involve yourself if you have no answers and seemingly you don’t.It’s useless.Thanks
Robert–It was Bush’s Recession in Jan 2001.It may have started in Clinton’s Adm. but it was Bush’s problem.Bottom line—It’s on Obama’s shoulders in Jan. and I hope he has answers.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Lefty–Name me One contractor than can do what “Haliburton” can at a cheaper price and get the job done on time as “H” does over and over again–just One.
Name me one that can do what “Blackwater” does without Military assistance–just One.
Obama himself as part of out Foreign Relations Commitee approved over $8 Bill in aid to Iraq–is he in on this plan to rip off America you refer to here?
The Amreican dominated Coalition Provisional Authority
The keyword here maybe ‘dominated’. So are you saying there are Bush cronies hiding in France,Canada,Australia, and Japan that Bush is funneling money to?If I were you I’d report these factual findings you have here to the authoritites as soon as possible.Supper time here.Thanks Lefty,Robert,Budda
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
–Name me One contractor than can do what “Haliburton” can at a cheaper price and get the job done on time as “H” does over and over again–just One.
……………………..
We don’t know because nobody else gets the contracts.
I maintain that there there was no real need for them at all, because was no reason to be there other than to open up the foreign markets for these contractors.
Why don’t we use the military instead of private mercenaries, or better yet, just let he oil companies pay for them and leave OUR treasury, military and good name out of it.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Lefty–Nobody else gets these contracts because they can’t do the job.Do you even know what Haliburton and Blackwater do?
The US Military cannot build a landing strip or repair structures faster than Haliburton therefore they are needed.
Blackwater guards the Embassy and The State Dept in Iraq.(Because they don’t have to abide by normal “rules of engagement”)
What do the Oil Companies have to do with it—lost me there.And NO-US Military (18 and 19 year olds making damn near minimum wage) should not be used to protect contractors that make 150K a year.Haliburton and Blackwater are self supporting–transportation,security even air cover.
So again–name any contractor that can do that.Just because Cheney had ties to Halinburton they should be eliminated from these contracts?
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
ok, its ALLAH got it. If I would of said GOD then it would not be very “PC” You know how much i hate to offend people.
Back on topic: Fine let the tax cuts expire in 2010. If the country is back on track and growing then great, but if we are still in a depression no. These are very simple concepts, i don’t need Hannity to tell me this.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
So says Haliburton.
Whatever did they do before…..The military was self sufficient.
Do REALLY don’t need to do most of this at all.
If your military,(who subject to the uniform code of military justice), is insuffiecient, than you don’t need to be engaging in empire building at all.
Remember Eisenhower said,
“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. “
You asked,
“So again–name any contractor that can do that.Just because Cheney had ties to Halinburton they should be eliminated from these contracts?”
No it suggests the possibility of a conflict of interest, that the policy is driven by the profits.
He knew, once there was a “war industry”, there would war for the sake of war profiteering.
Or Republican strategist, Kevin Phillips who said:
“The Bushes represent the embodiment of a mortal danger to the American republic: “the advent of a Machiavelli-inclined dynasty … [with] a dynastic heir whose unfortunate inheritance is privileged, covert, and globally embroiling.”
Again, let the oil companies hire the private Co. for their wars.
A few of the top 25:
Washington Group International
Environmental Chemical
Aegis
International American Products
Erinys
Fluor
Titan
CACI.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Going away for a few weeks, everybody hav a nice Thanksgiving!
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Absolutely they should be eliminated Bryan. It’s called conflict of interest.
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Haliburton is a worldwide construction and transportation firm that are in over 100 countries right now,not just Iraq.I still don’t know how this is connected to the Oil Companies though.Like I said—None can compete with Haliburton—just name one that does it better.
Jersey–No conflict of interest–Cheney has nothing to do with Haliburton right now–I expect he will return to them in January though.So where is the conflict?
Using that way of thinking you would have to eliminate everyone who helped in the Obama campaign from being in his administration–conflict of interest.Getting a man elected to office for personal gain even if it’s just a cabinet post.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
That is so NOT the definition in proper context. Those aren’t even comparable in the slightest.
Do we allow a person of power with ties to a company (who may indeed be going back to that company) to accept that company for a contract that enriches the company and himself through stock?
No, there are laws against that kind of insider manipulation. But laws don’t apply to Repubs unless they’re beneficial to the wallet. I always seem to forget that.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Jersey–My apologies–I thought Defense contracts were administered by the Defense Dept. not the Vice President.Lets hear your therory on how the V.P. secretly controls the Defense Dept. now.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Soooo, you don’t think we should allow the tax cuts for the rich to expire and at the same time execute an economy stimulus package that will include tax cuts for 95% of the working (or at least WAS working) population?
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Robert–I have been asking all day for someone to show me how it works.I showed at 1:56 pm on this post why it doesn’t work for me and most working class Americans.Please—show me where I am wrong—what am I not seeing?I am serious here–not picking around.Show me another way to look at it.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
Impact of the Obama Tax Plan
WHO TAX CUT
Married Couple Making $75,000 with two children, one of whom is in college $3,700
[includes $1,000 Making Work Pay; $500 universal mortgage credit; and $4,000 college credit net of current college credits]
Married Couple making $90,000 $1,000
Single Parent making $40,000 with two young children and childcare expenses. $2,100
[includes $500 making work pay; $500 universal mortgage credit, and $1,100 from Obama expansion of the child care tax credit]
70-Year Old Widow Making $35,000 $1,900
Source: Calculations based on IRS Statistics of Income. Tax savings is conservative; does not account for up to $500 in savings from expanded Savers Credit and the $2,500 in savings per family from the Obama healthcare plan
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Hope that helps you, Bryan.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Of course, by delaying the reversal of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy (those earning more than 250,000) the plan is not totally offset, so a deficit is created in the short term.
The ten billion a month Iraq expense will decrease as the troops begin returning …probably realized beginning in the Spring.
Today, the talk of the airwaves is the estimated cost of the economic stimulus package. It is estimated to be a (forgive me for this, but it is too good to just pass up) Bush choking $600 or $700 billion in total over two years. Now, that money would be over the existing original “bailout” money that Paulson has been playing with so far (Paulson was called “the worst Treasury Secretary in decades,” by Steve Forbes today.
Now, there’s something that wasn’t a surprise….conservatives keep eating their own…sad.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Oh and Bryan say thank you for the hand out. Hmmmm comes on the liberland for the answers.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The $500 tax cut won’t work I proved that earlier.
(1)Small Business does not pay Capital Gains.
(2)He has made no mention of cutting corporate taxes– I have heard him say he would eliminate their tax breaks.
(3)I do my taxes in 5 minutes now
(4)20% lower than Reagan—that means I’ll only pay 26% in taxes? I can’t find that Robert..tell me again where this is.
(5)The Tax Policy Center says my divdends rate will go from 26.5% to 39% under Obama–not be reduced by 39%
(6) 2% of the country giving back money while not addressing the 40% that pays no taxes makes no sense.
(7) I know people who have kids for tax credit—no help there.
I don’t undestand “Making work pay” statement
I still see it as punishing hard work–I only know a few that make over 250K and they work their ass off.
And we all know that there alot of people who simply don’t want to work.I am Flat Tax fan here.
Thanks for the info–
November 24th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Hey Craig—What hand out–I’m stingy—
Local 391 Colfax,N.C.
Robert–I agree with Forbes–no common sense coupled with “Hand Out Congress” screws us all—Just heard we are now bailing out CitiGroup
When will Congress figure out they can’t beat High Dollar Corporate Lawyers
November 24th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Hand out “congress”…. who got that ball rolling Bryan?
November 24th, 2008 at 12:24 am
If you know alot of people that don’t want to work, 2 words… New Friends I do doubt you know anyone that doesn’t want to work but it is your ralling cry.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Craig—Hand Out Congress per Bush,Pelosi,Reid,MaCain,Obama,Clinton,Boxer—the list is too long to put here.
Letting Congress have Oversight Commitees makes as much sense as letting Charles Manson preside over the Jeffery Dalhmer trial.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:33 am
I didn’t say I knew anyone that didn’t want to work Craig—I don’t hang out with sorry people–I said we all know there are folks out there that don’t want to work—you disagree? I’m not rallying for anything just stating a fact.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Bryan who was it again Paulson or Bush that spoke 1st? Ahhh nevermind, denial is pathetic. Accountability does matter and like it or not the buck stops at the top. Bush
November 24th, 2008 at 12:38 am
“And we all know that there alot of people who simply don’t want to work” that’s your quote right?
November 24th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Yes I disagree, seriously I dont know a person that doesn’t want to work.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Craig—Who voted for the bail out—damn near everyone in Congress.Accountability does count.Now who is The Speaker of The House and The Senate Majority Leader again? Damn what’s their names again.
Like I said I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want to work but if you say there are none out there I’ll take your word for it.But wonder what that man I see on the corner close to my Hub is doing at 9 am holding a 40oz,job hunting I suppose.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:08 am
ELIMINATE ALL CORPORATE TAXES!!!!!!
ELIMINATE THE INHERITANCE TAX!!!!
ELIMINATE TAXES ON SAVINGS!!!!!
BETTER YET….ELIMINATE THE IRS!!!!!
A little bait for you liberals out there who just LOVE paying taxes.
Go for it.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Let’s start by eliminating annoying posts that are ALL IN CAPS.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Face it,BUSH has laid a sloppy egg. OBAMA has a extremly large mess on hand when he takes office. On taxes,the GOP makes taxes higher as well. The great GOP savior RONALD REAGAN laid the ground work for the mess we are in now.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Try the Fair Tax Plan…Neil Bortz.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
The best path for your country now, is for the administration to pursue a liberal agenda…expand the social safety net and start to reduce the inequality that has become a mirror of the 1920’s. A New Deal for the 21st century. Starting with universal health care.
Far from “postponing the end of the depression” (a fallacy) FDR’s policies before and during WWII led the US into 20 years of prosperity like it had never seen.
A progressive income tax, estate taxes to limit the out-of-control wealth building by the elite over generations (most of whose ancestors built their initial wealth on the backs of slavery and usury), fair capital gains taxes ….this is what FDR brought in and this is what led to the prosperity of the 50’s and 60’s…
Now that “movement conservativism” is being seen for what it is (policies that benefit a tiny minority of the wealthy, wrapped up in fear-mongering and xenophobia) the time had come, again, to address the grievous inequalities in your population…
November 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
So, the tax cut rollback on people earning over $250grand won’t take affect right away. Bully for you guys!
As a small business owner, I’ll take a bailout to get me to that figure (in taxable net earnings, of course) so that I continue to get the Woooooonnnnnnnnddddderrrrfffffulllllll tax benefits that GW gave me…what a joke!
November 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Dang it dang it dang it. Why does Obama think I voted for him to only lower taxes? I am happy to pay my fair share of this great country. I voted SPECIFICALLY to raise the top 5% rich guy’s taxes. They have profited from our physical and political infrastructure more than Joe Average, especially these past ten years, and MUST start paying for the country they fleeced.
This is as big a broken campaign promise as if Obama had decided to privatize Social Security after all.
Dang it all. Screwed again. This country flourished at the tax level Clinton had. Now I’ve been baited and switched. Millionaire Obama is just another lying politician after all.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Conservatives imply that liberals think Obama is the Messiah. Well they have their own Messiah Ronald Regan, and they’re still worshiping at that temple.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
They will repeal them after the stimulus package is passed. But they will wait till then and hold out they might “allow them to expire”. sorry wing nuts LOL
November 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
[...] Alan discusses Obama’s tax plan and explains how the President-elect is already turning America’s [...]
November 24th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Bryan….Alan is gonna tell ya….
*whew* That will help my fingers.
congressive….ya gotta quit drinkin’ so early in the afternoon or use your normal name when you post.
Marcus, I agree…what better way for Bush’s tax cuts to go…by extinction…just like the dinosaurs…and other conservative creatures that don’t believe in evolution. LOL
November 24th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Another politician that will say anything to get elected . . . we’re (the taxpayers) are going to get screwed . . . again!
November 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
BLAIR states: “…..but, a per centage comparison says a completely different thing…and that is why Republicans don’t use it. Per centage of income-wise, the rich pay less than the poor.”
Blair, I find this a ridiculous assertion. First the poor don’t pay taxes. Second, sure the rich guy with 10 million in the market pays only 15% cap gains tax when he sells appreciated assets and 15% tax on dividends on stocks he holds….BUT don’t forget he already paid 39.6% in taxes when he earned $16.6 million back in 2000 in the first place (his tax on the 16.6 million was about 6 million, netting him $10 mill)…Now he invests the balance and has to pay cap gains tax too! That’s why the cap gains tax is nothing less than the deferred double taxation of earnings (albeit at a lower rate).
As a point of comparison, a married couple with two kids earning $100,000 from their employment during 2008, with property taxes of $3,000 and a $200,000 mortgage will pay less $9,000 in federal income tax for the 2008 tax year = 9% of earned income. So even though their taxable income is technically in “25% bracket” they pay about 9% in taxes after credits (and this would have been further reduced with a McCain health care tax credit). There are no rich folks out there paying less than 9% of their income in taxes — and most of them pay more than $9,000 to have their tax returns prepared.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Alan, people from the right are not going to applaud common sense. Common sense is expected.
For those who want to “get the rich” (which includes the likes of Obama and Biden, not to mention the Kennedy clan and most of the other liberal royalty in the government), remember that once the momentum for tax increases come along, everyone gets a tax hike eventually….that includes the middle and lower class.
Furthermore, let’s examine government spending. Why just raise taxes and increase spending on all of Obama’s liberal “priorities”? Consider this:
- The government gives subsidies to farmers NOT to grow crops. Why?
- The government bails out big banks whose management messed up. Why?
- In a recession, when the government is in debt, Obama wants to spend more money on his abortion cronies who helped out big time to get him elected? Why do our tax dollars have to fund this?
- Congress votes itself a raise every year despite approval ratings lower than those of Bush. Why?
- Senators and Congress people get F-R-E-E rental cars and F-R-E-E gas for those rental cars. Why must the taxpayers subsidize this?
But, afterall, the answer is to keep the gravy train flowing and just solve everything by “taxing the rich.” Don’t do any deep thinking. Don’t cut the fat from the government. Once they “tax the rich,” more people get will laid off because the rich can’t afford to pay employees AND fund the never ending government gravy train. Laid off employees = less government revenue in payroll taxes. That means the government will have an excuse to raise taxes on the middle class. They’ll just give some sob story about being “forced” to cut medicare or some other hot button program if they can’t raise taxes on the middle class. But they’ll never cut all the gravy for Congress, the gravy for big farmers, the gravy for the abortion industry, etc.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Another point about Obama voters who drool over the prospect of “taxing the rich”…
The tax is based on earnings. If you have already earned enough to make you “rich” then you are not going to be taxed on the existing money again. The rich get to keep the money they have already earned.
Who does get punished, excuse me, I mean taxed? The people who have gone out and spent time and money to obtain college degrees who want to upgrade their status. As their income increases, they get to pay more in taxes. So, why should people bother going to college and funding all these leftwing radical professors when they’re only going to be taxed if they make something of themselves? Afterall, as Obama says “When you $pread the wealth around, it’$ good for everybody.” Why bother going to college to better yourself when Obama will just $pread someone else’s wealth to you?
So, under the liberal’s “tax the rich” plan, it creates a permanent class of wealthy elites who already are flush with cash. (This includes all the wealthy politicians.) Anyone who wants to work their way up by innovating and coming up with new ideas for products and services will be taxed so much that they won’t bother. They will not be allowed to enter the “wealthy elite club” because they will be taxed on new income.
This means liberals actually WANT a caste system. They want a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class. America used to be a place where one could work hard and better themselves. Thanks to liberals and their love of taxes, there is no incentive to challenge oneself or better one’s circumstances. Liberals evidently don’t like the American dream.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Bill, that’s stupid. Basic economics would disagree with you completely.
The taxes aren’t graduated enough to be a net negative on people earning more. You earn more, you pay more -sure- but you HAVE more after the taxing is all said and done.
You must have gone to the Dick Morris school of finance. You know him right, the one who thinks people would rather sell at a loss than pay an extra $50 in tax on a $5000 return?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The poor pay sales tax in many places…
Egads…Dick Morris…that genious that has missed every prediction he has made for anything in the future…but, when confronted, can predict the past like a champ. The guy is the dumbest liar that we’ve seen for a while. He does absolutely nothing for the credibility of the talking heads on Fox. Beyond Bill the Clown, he does more lying than anyone on Fox…except for Sean…Sean has the ability to cram more twisted lies as a pretext for any question he asks a liberal guest than any human I have ever seen.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Dear Alan,
I was so sorry to hear you are leaving “Hannity & Colmes” and I will sincerely miss you….even though I am a conservative. You did yeoman service!
November 25th, 2008 at 9:44 pm