Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (97.81)

Read my lips: no more tax cuts for billionaires. Oh wait, there is one more.

Recs

6

December 07, 2010 – Comments (14)

It may well be, in fact, even likely that the recovery happens anyway regardless of political manipulations in Congress. The tripling of the money base by the unelected president, Ben Bernanke, amounts to a 30 trillion dollar stimulus, which would rejuvenate even a cadaver. And Obama is right when he says that middle-class taxes will not go up (aside from the inflation tax, to be sure). However, this is not what was promised. The promise was to end the tax cuts for the top 2%. So what should one make of this tax deal? I thought it over (for about 1 second ;) and came up with this incredible conclusion: he just lied.  

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 07, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

Don't they all, though.  He not only lied, but he went belly up with the lacks of cajones to do what he should have.  Bipartisan agreement is idealistic, and since you can't please everyone, he should have pissed off the republicans instead of rolling over. Oh well, 2 years goes by fast...

Report this comment
#2) On December 07, 2010 at 11:01 AM, mtf00l (46.49) wrote:

You shouldn't be so hard on him.  The POTUS has been outright owned by big money interest for decades.  As a spokesperson you have to give him credit.  He is eloquent.

Report this comment
#3) On December 07, 2010 at 11:54 AM, leohaas (31.73) wrote:

It is called compromise. You give some, you get some. It is everyday politics. This contains something for everyone to hate, and something for everyone to like. That's life. Get used to it. That goes for all of you here on CAPS!

Report this comment
#4) On December 07, 2010 at 12:02 PM, talotu (< 20) wrote:

Latest polls were 53% for raising taxes on "the rich", 38% against.  Senate would have voted for it, House did vote for it, President would have signed it.

Unfortunately now we have a system where the minority rules the majority, as long as they put their interests ahead of the country's.

 

 

Report this comment
#5) On December 07, 2010 at 12:08 PM, starbucks4ever (97.81) wrote:

#3,

It was not a compromise but an unconditional surrender. 

#4,

Not true. It's not hard to pressure someone if he himself wants to be pressured. 

Report this comment
#6) On December 07, 2010 at 12:14 PM, mtf00l (46.49) wrote:

Perhaps we should try this as the next round of stimulus...

The Fed has sent the interbank rate to zero and have bought, well, everything.  Great!

The government is manipulating everything they have the power to manipulate.  Great!

Let's declare both a debt amnesty and a tax amnesty for the citizens.  Then we can all participate in the bailouts and stimulus.  =D

Report this comment
#7) On December 07, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

I like the debt amnesty idea, then my student loans woudl be gone...good thinking mtf001...do you want to run for POTUS?

Report this comment
#8) On December 07, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Mstinterestinman (20.76) wrote:

Yeah it was basiaclly to get unemplyment benefits extended. Repubs weren't going to let it pass so it this is the only way they were allowing it.  I hate to say this but washington belongs to the special interest groups don't hold your breath on them doing much for the average joe.

Report this comment
#9) On December 07, 2010 at 1:43 PM, dargus (80.69) wrote:

Republicans hate deficits so much they agreed to increase spending (not that I think unemployment benefits are a terrible idea right now) and decrease tax revenues.

Perhaps we should be asking why the Republicans lied about their priorites so much during the campagin?

Report this comment
#10) On December 07, 2010 at 1:47 PM, rofgile (99.25) wrote:

We have a Republican congress that doesn't compromise at all, and a Democratic president who compromises too much.

I can't feel at all happy about this.  The tax cut which benefits everyone (on all earnings below 250k limit) should have been extended.  The tax cut which only benefits those earning greater than 250k should have expired.

I guess the President's logic was this:  Unemployment benefits will significantly help lots of people (and perhaps keep a few more people in houses, which is quite important now, especially at Christmas).  Keeping the tax cut on the rich for two more years won't result in significant damage to the country (we are already in huge debt, whats a couple more hundred billion?).

Overall, the result is more stimulus in the US and less austerity. What would be better would be to restore taxes for those above 250k, and use the revenue to make the tax cut for everyone (on earnings below 250k) that much larger.  That would have been real stimulus.

Obama is a bit of a let down, the Republican congress is also infuriating.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#11) On December 07, 2010 at 1:55 PM, mtf00l (46.49) wrote:

@Jbay76

Thanks for your vote!  Funny thing if you go look at my blog post you'll find one... =D

@rofgile

Doesn't the Rebuplican Congress take over at the first of the new year?

When do newly elected congressmen take office? Monday, January 3, 2011 at noon is when the new Congress convenes.
From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_do_newly_elected_congressmen_take_office

Report this comment
#12) On December 07, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Mary953 (74.69) wrote:

Why do you guys keep talking about "Tax Breaks" as though the government is giving us something instead of just not stealing quite as much from us?  The 20 TON Elephant in the room is that the money doesn't belong to the government in the first place!

Report this comment
#13) On December 07, 2010 at 5:37 PM, rfaramir (29.42) wrote:

Right on, Mary!

And the lack of tax rise (it's not a cut) is only about $8 Billion (I hear), which will easily be covered by not having earmarks for one year (if that really occurs).

Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Like everyone else, when revenues are down a bit, you tighten your belt a bit. Not go on a drunken spending spree!

see http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/ 

Report this comment
#14) On December 07, 2010 at 5:54 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Mary, you are so right.

This is no great win for the conservatives.  Just to maintain the current tax rates they had to cave on a 13 mo. extension of unemployment benefits that will cost tens of billions.

Some good things did come from the agreement: capital gains rates will remain the same, businesses will be able to expense capital equipment purchases, and workers will see a reduction in their FICA withholdings.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement