phreddy wrote:

Your argument is spurious.  You and I both know that Bush would much rather have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place.  He agreed to the compromise term because it was the only way to get them passed.

Your arguement reeks of bias and we all know that the tax cuts were election year driven; and the only comprise he made was with the moderate Republicans who mostly stood against the cuts.  The vote cut straight down party lines in both houses with only one cross-over.

All tax brackets received a 2% cut EXCEPT the bottom two brackets which did not receive a cut; which makes sense in a Far Right(aka: Fuck the poor) run government.

So your famous compromise was because mainstream republicans weren't on board with the madness; oh and both tax cuts were sold as stimulus packages to get the country going again (Bush did a stimulus package in each election year except 2007 when he nationalized the banking and automobile industries).

So no, Bush & the Republicans did exactly what they wanted to do, ergo he legislated a tax increase for the end of 2010.

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Your argument is spurious.  You and I both know that Bush would much rather have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place.  He agreed to the compromise term because it was the only way to get them passed.

Your history is spurious.  Bush agreed to the sunset provision because he had no way to deal with the whopping deficit that scorekeepers correctly saw as the consequence of extending them past 9 years.  Neither he nor other republican politicians were willing to live with what is now the clear consequence - a yawning budget gap that they are unable to fill.

Sometimes known as a compromise.

Tall Paul wrote:

Don't talk to me about the cruel ironies of life! Don't you people know or care that Bentley is recalling cars because some of the hood ornaments may fail to retract properly??

The hood ornament is supposed to retract? Excuse me, I don't pay Bentley prices to hit middle class scum with my car and not get to watch them tear in half.

Emmeran wrote:

PS: Don't try to change the fact that Bush signed the legislation mandating a tax increase at the end of this year; it was a slick political move but it remains a tax increase that the Republican Congress passed and George Bush signed into law.  The piece of paper mandating this tax increase has George Bush's signature on it end of story.

This is such a lame argument that I'm almost embarrassed for you.  According to your logic, the people who negotiate a temporary cease fire in a war are responsible for the war when it resumes.  The doctor who gets your cancer into remission is responsible for causing the disease when it returns.  Your wife kicks you in the nuts to stop the beating, but when the pain subsides enough for you to continue, she is responsible for what happens next.  Completely lame argument and not worthy of you Em.

Fled wrote:

Perhaps the anology ought to be that the Bushies made a 9 year supply of free crack available, and now that people are hooked, Obama is obligated to keep providing free dope.  See how easy it is to make stupid analogies?

I never said Obama and company are obligated to extend the tax cut.  I'm chiding Em for claimng this is a tax increase orchestrated by Bush.  Although we would be simply going back to the pre-Bush rates, the net effect of not extending the tax cuts will be seen by the public as a tax increase by the Dems.  They would be wise not to do that in the middle of a recession, especially since they are taking so much heat for exacerbating it.

phreddy wrote:

I never said Obama and company are obligated to extend the tax cut.  I'm chiding Em for claimng this is a tax increase orchestrated by Bush.  Although we would be simply going back to the pre-Bush rates, the net effect of not extending the tax cuts will be seen by the public as a tax increase by the Dems.  They would be wise not to do that in the middle of a recession, especially since they are taking so much heat for exacerbating it.

You're probably right about how the public would see it.  However, current polling data indicates it would be a very popular move to enact legislation to extend the tax cuts only for people with income under $250,000, while allowing the tax cuts for the higher income group to expire.

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

I never said Obama and company are obligated to extend the tax cut.  I'm chiding Em for claimng this is a tax increase orchestrated by Bush.  Although we would be simply going back to the pre-Bush rates, the net effect of not extending the tax cuts will be seen by the public as a tax increase by the Dems.  They would be wise not to do that in the middle of a recession, especially since they are taking so much heat for exacerbating it.

You're probably right about how the public would see it.  However, current polling data indicates it would be a very popular move to enact legislation to extend the tax cuts only for people with income under $250,000, while allowing the tax cuts for the higher income group to expire.

Of course it would be popular.  It would be popular to take most of the assets of the rich and give them to the rest of us, but that isn't going to spur recovery or job creation.

Well, cutting their taxes again and again and again certainly hasn't led to a stronger economy than we had before. We've been lowering their taxes since Reagan, and it seems to have no effect on the overall health of the economy. Right now, I believe the taxes on the rich are as low as they've been in 80 years, and we have the worst economy we've had in 80 years. That makes it tough to claim that lower taxes on the rich are the key to a vibrant economy for the rest of us.

Last edited by ah297900 (2010-09-27 18:31:42)

Fled wrote:

The bill they proposed and passed included the very sunset provision you complain about.  They included the provision because of the extremely ugly budget implications of running it out more than 9 years.  It was their doing.  Now you act like it is the current administration's obligation to change the law the Bushies enacted, extending the tax cuts so that Obama is then are to blame for the very budget crisis that was foreseeable from the beginning.

It's even worse than that. The bill was written that way because they knew that what they were doing (cutting taxes in wartime) was irresponsible, so they put in the sunset provision to paint a facade of responsibility on it. Even worse, they knew even then that no Republican would have a chance in hell of being elected once Junior was out of office. The cold political calculation was that the economy would be right down the shitter (as it is) and that they could then beat up on the inevitable Democrat for raising taxes (as they are). They thought that inflicting poverty and despair on the American people would be the best way for them to move ahead. Are these the people you want back in control of the government and the economy? The very same people who turned a budget surplus into this mess? The same people who thought Sarah Palin should be second in line?

Last edited by Tall Paul (2010-09-27 19:49:28)

phreddy wrote:

The fact is all the recessions are temporary glitches in what has otherwise been a pretty damn good 80 years.  As for the tax cuts, every time we enact a tax cut the Dems creep the rates back up.  Right now combined federal and state tax rates for corporations average almost 40%.  This is second only to Japan.  High taxes will kill the golden goose.

Yay!!!  Phreddy got around to quoting a biased right-wing source; this conversation is complete.

Hey Phred, I know it's anecdotal but did you ever stop to wonder why we had zero market crashes during the periods of high taxation regardless of boom-time or recession.  However the minute we slashed the taxes to historic lows the market started crashing more often than a Gateway Desktop.

Funny how that shit happens eh???

Let’s see about the golden goose as victim.  Let’s say compare the Obama proposal to the Bush tax law under which all tax reductions will expire at the end of this year.  A couple filing jointly earning $300,000 would owe about $9,000 less under the Obama plan.  (For simplicity, assume no children and no deductions.)  If you compare the Obama plan to simply extending all of the tax reductions, the same couple would owe $1,400 more in taxes under the Obama plan.  Even if you choose to view it that way, it’s an increase of less than 0.5% in taxes due.

Now let’s say you are the average taxpayer who earns over $250,000, which means you have about $800,000 in earnings for the year (married filing jointly, no kids and no deductions).  Again, your taxes on the first $250,000 is unchanged from prior years.  Comparing the Obama proposal to the Bush tax law (all tax cuts expiring), a couple filing jointly earning $800,000 would owe about about $8,000 less under the Obama plan.  If you compare the Obama plan to simply extending all of the tax reductions, the same couple under the Obama plan would have a tax increase of less than $25,000.  Even viewing it that way, your take-home income after federal taxes under the Obama plan would be over $530,000.  Do you really believe that living on $530,000 for the year would be so disheartening that you would give up and let your income collapse?

Portraying the wealthy as victims is lame.

Last edited by Fled (2010-09-28 06:26:50)

That all looks scary. You're right--I would much rather have the rich pay more tax than face that kind of debt in the future.