bush/obama tax cuts
 

i think it's disingenuous to just call them by one or the others name. a new battle over continuing the cuts is about to begin. obama proposes not continuing the cuts to people making over 250k a year (i wonder why they were ever included originally, or continued subsequently) whereas some will recommend keeping them all intact. then there's this question(from an msnbc article):

" Here’s an entirely different question: Have these tax cuts worked? Have they promoted economic growth? Have they created lots of jobs? The Bush-era tax cuts have been in existence for 11 years now. During that time period, George W. Bush presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades; the Great Recession took place; and job creation during Obama’s presidency has been lackluster. In this renewed debate over the Bush tax cuts, we’re going to hear Republicans claim that not extending them -- especially for the wealthy -- will hurt the economy. And we’ll hear the same from Obama when it comes to extending them for the middle class. But what evidence is there that these tax cuts have truly benefited the U.S. economy? This is one of these accepted pieces of conventional wisdom that doesn’t get much study on the policy front because, politically, it’s so lethal."


how much have they helped, if at all? did making the cuts actually cause more harm than good, by not nudging jobs figures while putting the fed in a more precarious predicament by cutting funds going into ss? a growing debt/deficit is a damper on the us economy.
honestly, with everything that's happened, i'm surprised we aren't worse off than we are.

The Bush Tax cuts are the major contributory cause and continued driver of our deficit (why the left was angry at Obama for continuing them for 2 years during the recession, but the economists wanted him to)

The ten years of the Bush Tax cuts were an unfinanced giveaway to the wealthiest Americans, who benefited the most with the largest percentage cuts. The middle class portion was tiny and unsubstantial, a bone to be thrown.

If the deficit is the "most important thing" to you, you have to be in favor of letting the cuts expire.

At this point, as the economy is so stagnant, it makes sense to continue them for middle class and below, as it will keep a bit of money flowing into the economy (the wealthy don't increase their spending with more cash flow, they just sock it away)



Bush Tax Cuts were a sweet deal for the wealthiest Americans, who benefited the most:

Obama's plan gives us 8 days of additional gov spending money. $85 Billion just doesn't go as far as it use to :rolleyes:

What I don't understand is why it's being painted as "continuing middle class tax cuts" vs "continuing tax cuts for everybody" when, in fact, the tax cuts on income below $250,000 a year IS FOR EVERYBODY. A sanitation worker's first $15,000 in income is taxed at exactly the same rate as a neurosurgeon's. So continuing the lower tax rates on income below $250,000 is something everyone gets, not just the "middle class." It's more accurate to say it's a decision whether to continue to give the wealthy EXTRA tax cuts.

the trillions obama added mean nothing..:rolleyes:

You're letting reality intrude :D With our huge deficit - caused by these very tax cuts - there's really zero reason to let them continue. Anybody who is pro-fix-the-deficit must agree to let them expire as planned.

Obama got a good trade from the GOP for extending these two years ago, but now, that's over. And Obama knows the GOP doesn't bargain faithfully.

What's funny is that way back when these tax cuts were passed, the GOP bragged that it probably wouldn't be the GOP in the White House that had to deal with the expiration. That was planned.

So, they are expiring, as they were designed to, unless the GOP steps up to save them. Let the GOP run against the fact they raised taxes on the middle class. The Dems have them over this barrel, indeed.

But those of all political views, seeing the massive deficit these giveaways by Bush caused our country, have to be in favor of letting them lapse. We need that money back, and everybody knows it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...R9aW_blog.html

As the president said yesterday, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy would not impact 98 percent of American wage earners and 97 percent of small-business owners.

“The upper-income cuts return $850 billion over 10 years to the Treasury, simply by reverting to the top rates under Clinton, when the wealthy fared perfectly well, the budget balanced, and growth was much stronger and more broadly shared than in the Bush years,” wrote Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the former chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. “The fact that these upper-income increases hit only the top 2% — and that’s considering both households and small businesses — is also important. They won’t hurt the wobbly recovery, as these folks are not income constrained in the first place.”

obama's trying to get the middle class on his side by trying to keep the cuts for them.
then there's that many don't understand the progressive tax system. i've explained it to a few people, but much of the time it's just not worth the effort. you explain it, they say 'oh', and then continue the same bitching they were already engaged in.
what i don't get is why republicanss immediately start discussing small business when the tax deal gets brought up. i have friends in several different types of small business-and none of them bring home over 250k. the payroll tax cut has nothing to do with them. it's a red herring.

anytime you can tag a tax on someone else, it benefits you. so, they still beat the drum of bush giving tax cuts to everyone...but obama doesn't want them ALL to end on his watch, because then he'd have a tax increase pinned permanently to his name, thus hurting his fellow dems.
i'd rather that he called their bluff and let the stuff expire then continue with all of them.