President Barack Obama says more taxes on rich only option on deficit

[Dante]

another hysterical ALERT issue for the right wing to hold onto.



they want no compromise and yet they panic over the 'cliff'


a little bit of cognitive dissonance goes a long way for these folks

 

[edthecynic]

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.


I mean without the name-calling debate-stoppers, you haven't explained your position. I'd really like to hear an answer to this question for once.

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Tax cuts are an infinitely better form of stimulus than the Stimulus was.

People spend their own money better than the government can.

Progressives simply can't understand this.

Just not the taxes the GOP always cut!

The best tax to cut for job creation is the regressive payroll tax. Even GOP Congressman and former head of the Ways & Means committee Bill Thomas says the payroll tax is a "job killer." Thomas has said, "Now that it's [the payroll tax] 12 percent, we actually are dealing with a job-killer. The higher the payroll tax, the fewer people are hired."

Regressives simply can't understand this.

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs, but neither Party will do, is to REPLACE each of Bush's tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.

This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

 

[Dante]

So the answer is: No you can't point to a time when tax decreases during a bad economy helped?


I can, how about the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. What about the Kennedy tax cuts back in the early 60s, after he died I think.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter. - Slate Magazine

Tax Cuts in Camelot?
JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

(In 1997 in Slate, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum dissected one of these ads.) Now the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore is enlisting JFK to take a swipe at Howard Dean's economic vision in the Wall Street Journal, declaring it anti-growth, burdensome to the middle-class, and in an oh-so-painful concluding slap, final proof that the Democrats "no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago."

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.


This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

older and dumber maybe, but wiser?

 

[syrenn]

President Barack Obama says more taxes on rich only option on deficit

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, laying down his marker for grueling "fiscal cliff" negotiations, said Friday he won't accept any approach to federal deficit reduction that doesn't ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes.

"This was a central question during the election," Obama said in his first postelection comments on the economy. "The majority of Americans agree with my approach."​

Of course they do. It's just like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

really... the only option?


the man has no imagination.

Not a lot, no. Progressives can't comprehend that spending on their special interest groups can be cut, too. Only defense, which benefits society not nearly as much as spending on failing alternative energy companies owned by big Dem donors, professional welfare cheats, and union pension bailouts.

here is bipartisan spending cuts.... 20% cut on everything no sacred cows!!! ... and that includes government payroll,benefits...and what government will pay contractors!

 

[syrenn]

another hysterical ALERT issue for the right wing to hold onto.



they want no compromise and yet they panic over the 'cliff'


a little bit of cognitive dissonance goes a long way for these folks

LOL.... i think we should let it go over the cliff.

 

[daveman]

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Tax cuts are an infinitely better form of stimulus than the Stimulus was.

People spend their own money better than the government can.

Progressives simply can't understand this.

Just not the taxes the GOP always cut!

The best tax to cut for job creation is the regressive payroll tax. Even GOP Congressman and former head of the Ways & Means committee says the payroll tax is a "job killer." Thomas has said, "Now that it's [the payroll tax] 12 percent, we actually are dealing with a job-killer. The higher the payroll tax, the fewer people are hired."

Regressives simply can't understand this.

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs, but neither Party will do, is to REPLACE each of Bush's tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.

This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

I agree that lowering payroll taxes leaves business more money to operate and expand, putting more people to work.

But the left will not accept that. I don't know why you're claiming the right opposes it.

 

[daveman]

really... the only option?


the man has no imagination.

Not a lot, no. Progressives can't comprehend that spending on their special interest groups can be cut, too. Only defense, which benefits society not nearly as much as spending on failing alternative energy companies owned by big Dem donors, professional welfare cheats, and union pension bailouts.

here is bipartisan spending cuts.... 20% cut on everything no sacred cows!!! ... and that includes government payroll,benefits...and what government will pay contractors!

Progs will never go along with that. Because America will fall if we don't pay crack whores to have babies.

 

[Truthmatters]

why not just raise the top tax rates.

The rights claim about it ruining the economy has NO basis in historical record.

 

[syrenn]

why not just raise the top tax rates.

The rights claim about it ruining the economy has NO basis in historical record.

why not make everyone pay federal tax with no exemptions?

 

[Rshermr]

I see over and over from cons that increasing taxes on the upper income tax payers will hurt our economy.
So, I ask again, show a case where in a poor economy, with high unemployment, raising taxes has hurt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I see over and over from cons that increasing taxes on the upper income tax payers will hurt our economy.
So, I ask again, show a case where in a poor economy, with high unemployment, raising taxes has hurt.

Well there is the East Germany, USSR, Red China, North Korea,Cuba, etc etc . The more the government grew the more the private sector shrunk and the more poverty there was!!

Get it ?? One dollar the government has is one dollar the private sector does not have. This harms the economy since the government does not invent new products but rather creates mal investment as in the current housing depression!!

 

[oldernwiser]

Duiring the debates and the campaign, Obama said again and again how he cut taxes like 18 times or whatever. And he did say that a tax hike when the economy was bad wasn't a good idea (paraphrasing). 'Course, he said that back in 2008 or 2009. Clinton said it too. Tax cuts are actually a form of stimulus, I thought you guys were all over that.

Short term, tax cuts are supposed to redirect the economy. It kinda worked this time and probably would have if Greece hadn't picked that exact period to tank. But for every tax cut is an equal and opposite tax hike, because spending like a mad man when there's no money coming in results in downgraded credit ratings (as we saw when the last Bush cut taxes and then declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq).

How come it's bad when Bush does it but not when Obama does it?

Because Obama did it in direct Keynesian response to a hard recession bordering on depression. Bush did it to give away the surplus built up in the Clinton admin. Bush failed to do what cost his father a 2nd term after Reagan's cuts - raise taxes after the recession ended in order to regain what the government had to give away.

 

[oldernwiser]

I see over and over from cons that increasing taxes on the upper income tax payers will hurt our economy.
So, I ask again, show a case where in a poor economy, with high unemployment, raising taxes has hurt.

Well there is the East Germany, USSR, Red China, North Korea,Cuba, etc etc . The more the government grew the more the private sector shrunk and the more poverty there was!!

Get it ?? One dollar the government has is one dollar the private sector does not have. This harms the economy since the government does not invent new products but rather creates mal investment as in the current housing depression!!

Only if they keep that dollar. Spending doesn't seem to be an issue here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I see over and over from cons that increasing taxes on the upper income tax payers will hurt our economy.
So, I ask again, show a case where in a poor economy, with high unemployment, raising taxes has hurt.

Well there is the East Germany, USSR, Red China, North Korea,Cuba, etc etc . The more the government grew the more the private sector shrunk and the more poverty there was!!

Get it ?? One dollar the government has is one dollar the private sector does not have. This harms the economy since the government does not invent new products but rather creates mal investment as in the current housing depression!!

Only if they keep that dollar. Spending doesn't seem to be an issue here.

no idea what you mean. Can you explain better??

 

[oldernwiser]

Well there is the East Germany, USSR, Red China, North Korea,Cuba, etc etc . The more the government grew the more the private sector shrunk and the more poverty there was!!

Get it ?? One dollar the government has is one dollar the private sector does not have. This harms the economy since the government does not invent new products but rather creates mal investment as in the current housing depression!!

Only if they keep that dollar. Spending doesn't seem to be an issue here.

no idea what you mean. Can you explain better??

Well, the countries you referenced had a thing about not giving that money back to their economies. Just because they were Communists didn't mean that they didn't also feed a rich plutocracy. Removing stagnant cash from the economy and then spending it in social programs moves money around quicker than just waiting for someone to buy something.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Removing stagnant cash from the economy and then spending it in social programs moves money around quicker than just waiting for someone to buy something.

too stupid by 1000% liberal! If moving money around was the objective we could print it and drop it from helicopters. As a liberal you will have no idea on earth how to respond to that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Removing stagnant cash from the economy and then spending it in social programs moves money

dear the objective is not to move money??? WHo told that lie and why do you parrot it??? The objective is to grow the economy. You do that with a vibrant private sector since th eprivate sector invents new products while the government does not. Did someone tell you Barry was an inventor? Who?

 

[Rshermr]

Only if they keep that dollar. Spending doesn't seem to be an issue here.

no idea what you mean. Can you explain better??

Well, the countries you referenced had a thing about not giving that money back to their economies. Just because they were Communists didn't mean that they didn't also feed a rich plutocracy. Removing stagnant cash from the economy and then spending it in social programs moves money around quicker than just waiting for someone to buy something.

oldernwiser,
You are trying to have an actual rational conversation with ed. Many have tried, and many have failed. Ed is not capable of rational discussion.
You are, of course, correct in what you are saying. Ed has the dogma in his head that stimulus spending does not work. Ed is an admitted libertarian. Can not name a country with a libertarian economy that has worked, but he believes anyway. He believes cutting taxes is always the way to make economies better. I have asked, and he has failed to name a single time when a bad economy in this country has been helped by decreasing taxes. And, so it goes. Just dogma from ed. So, over time most have come to the conclusion that it is better to just ignore ed. He has nothing of value to say.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can not name a country with a libertarian economy that has worked, .

Too stupid!!!!USA is most libertarian major country in human history and most successful by far in all of human history. In fact it was founded by tiny government libertarians, most notably, Jefferson.

 

[daveman]

I see over and over from cons that increasing taxes on the upper income tax payers will hurt our economy.
So, I ask again, show a case where in a poor economy, with high unemployment, raising taxes has hurt.

Well there is the East Germany, USSR, Red China, North Korea,Cuba, etc etc . The more the government grew the more the private sector shrunk and the more poverty there was!!

Get it ?? One dollar the government has is one dollar the private sector does not have. This harms the economy since the government does not invent new products but rather creates mal investment as in the current housing depression!!

Only if they keep that dollar. Spending doesn't seem to be an issue here.

Giving it to Dem party donors whose companies then fold doesn't seem to be putting much of it back into the economy, does it?