It occurs to me that if any Democrats who just got bounced out of office intend to support a continuation of tax cuts for the richest three percent of the population, then they were worse than useless. It’s one thing to vote in a way that helps you get reelected so you can do good things on other issues. But, if, once liberated from the need to appease big business, you still vote for tax cuts for the filthy rich and further exacerbate the historically large income gap, then you weren’t really a Democrat in the first place.
And, please, don’t give me an argument about the need not to raise taxes in a down economy. We need money in circulation, not in some trust fund. For business investors, the president is waiting for the Senate to pass a small business package that slashes taxes (again) and creates other incentives for investment. This has nothing to do with personal income.
I hope Pelosi continues to hold the line. The GOP will cave.
But, if, once liberated from the need to appease big business, you still vote for tax cuts for the filthy rich and further exacerbate the historically large income gap, then you weren’t really a Democrat in the first place.
So you see why some of us dislike Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad and some others with a fierce passion?
what are you going to say when the president caves? are you gonna say he’s “worse than useless”? that he “[wasn’t] really a Democrat in the first place”?
he’s already signaling that’s what he’s gonna do:
I wish progressives would stop reading Politico. It’s like citing Fox as news.
Saying that one is open to negotiation is not necessarily saying that one will compromise. It’s not a done deal yet. Wait til it is to start complaining about Obama. He hasn’t caved yet. Everyone has an opportunity to change.
I don’t care if he extends them for a year or even two, so long as he kills them in the end. I’m not concerned about compromise; I am concerned about capitulation and breaking his promise.
Decoupling is the compromise. Anything else is capitulation.
i agree. we know what happens when the next sunset comes: another round of excuses, and another extension.
just like USA Patriot Act. I’m not naive.
Obama knows this, which is why it will not happen unless they are decoupled. If there is any “line in the sand” this is it.
I have no doubts that Axelrod was floating a trial balloon. One that needs to be shot down.
This is a case in which no action is preferable to action. Why the White House grabbed onto this is a puzzle. Why the White House and Congress did not use this to beat Republicans over the head with before the election is a puzzle.
But watch. “Progressive” Jared Polis will be the first in line to break ranks if Pelosi lets him. And in the Senate, all we need is 41 Democrats to filibuster any amendment to add in tax cuts for the rich. Even if that goes against the leadership. It’s time that President Nelson and President Lieberman had their comeuppance.
And watch the administration and Congress make the biggest political and policy mistake if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. Bringing the middle class tax cut back up in the next Congress.
Extend them for a year by making the middle class ones permanent or let them all expire and use the debt as a reason why.
Call the GOP’s bluff. Bullies fold, especially lying ones.
I think this situation is, unfortunately, a lot more complex.
Suppose it goes like this: Obama recognizes that, to keep Democrats from getting pulverized again, and to get re-elected, he’s got to make the economy better. There are a number of ways of doing this, of course, most of which are anathema to the GOP. The only thing he can do is cut taxes. Otherwise we get nothing.
Now he can fight hard to decouple the middle class and upper income tax breaks, and try to inject some spine in the Democrats — and it seems Nancy Pelosi may do the same — but in the end, we all know that the GOP is far, far more likely to show spine than the Democrats. Frankly, BooMan, I’m not sure why you seem certain that the GOP will cave. Their base consistently rewards standing firm, no matter what the circumstances, and they work the media much better than we do, so the media will reinforce the frame.
If the GOP does hold fast, refusing to decouple the tax cuts, then what? Well Obama & the Dems could refuse to budge, and then we get absolutely nothing to help the economy, and then…it ain’t pretty. Voters might not be too happy with the GOP, but they won’t be happy with the Dems either. So nobody gets any leg up in the next election. Which means that the House doesn’t change much, and, because we’re defending 23 of 33 seats, we lose the Senate too.
If this is what we’re looking at, it’s hard to say that agreeing to a temporary extension of all tax cuts isn’t the best political move, as it might be our only hope of improving the economy even a little. I mean sure, I think it’s ludicrous. And sure, a party that was actually competent at messaging would club the GOP over the head with this until they were dazed and concussed. But we know the Democrats just can’t seem to do that. So what’s the alternative?
There is a lot that Obama can do administratively to focus federal funds on making the economy better.
Fleet conversion to alternative energy vehicles instead of bidding for the same old Ford Crown Victorias every time. Start with urban uses and subsidize the Volt startup and Ford’s energy efficient vehicles. For suburban uses convert to hybrids and select US automakers.
Hiring people directly instead of contracting out labor. Even for temporary or part-time jobs. That can extend the number of people who can be hired.
Tightening enforcement of wage and hour laws and rewriting the overtime rules to make overtime more expensive for employers. Upping enforcement of bogus “independent contractor” relationships, starting with multi-level marketing (otherwise known as Ponzi-with-products).
Reducing management salaries in agencies to free funds for hiring more workers to get things done.
Wait…70 percent of all new jobs in America are created by small businesses, not “big business”…52 percent of all income earned by small businesses are reported on the individual income tax returns of “filthy rich” people that own sub-chapter S corporations or LLC’s that earn over $250,000…income is reported regardless of whether the owner deposits the profits into his “trust fund”, or keeps the money in the business as retained earnings…
Is this really an effective strategy to address the single most important issue (i.e. jobs) to American voters today?
Hmmmm…..
Oh hi Poe’s Law:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/boehner_concedes_only_three_pe.html
The three percent statistic is not relevant…a small business as described in the article is any small business which reports any income or loss at all on any individual income tax return…this includes thousands of individuals who use “hobby” businesses for the primary purpose of obtaining tax deductions from business loss…for example, the homemaker that makes and sells hats, makes a few hundred dollars a month, and writes off a portion of the mortgage and utility expenses of her house as a business expense. These small business, though to be encouraged, do not create jobs.
Just like the top 1 percent of all income earners earn 24 percent of all income, I’m guessing that the top 3 percent of all small businesses likely produce in excess of 50 percent of all the income, and resulting jobs, produced by small businesses in America. You’re only effecting the top three percent, but those top three percent likely create from 35 to 45 percent of all jobs in this country.
(Perhaps you could research the precise number, and report back)
Yes your guessing.
I don’t understand this:
That means that the other 48 percent of all income produced by small businesses are either produced by C corporations, where income is not reported on the individual income tax returns of the shareholders, or is produced by S-corporations and LLC’s and reported on the income tax returns of shareholders and members earn less than $250,000.
Then I don’t understand your point with this:
Ending a tax cut is not going to affect jobs one way or the other in a demand-deficit recession.
Please don’t listen to Paul Krugman!
Production creates demand…Americans are still spending money, with some products and services more in demand than others…if I run a business that offers goods and services that are still in relatively high demand (i.e. a demand level that enables my business to realize a profit), and I expand my business, I need to hire people…those people will spend more on other goods and services…etc. etc. etc. Taxing earnings on those businesses reduces the dollars available for expansion.
The market will redirect capital from industries with lower demand to industries with higher demand, and those industries will expand and create jobs…if we don’t let the government screw it up.
Krugman won the Nobel prize in economics. I would say please don’t listen to “Liberty for All”. Booman has some issue with Krugman not the rest of this blog.
We need, at a minimum, to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2%. We need revenue and the first ten years of these tax breaks have only brought us pain and financial collapse.
Do you have so much money that this is a funny game to you?
Salunga…I’m just trying to present an alternate viewpoint. Your argument is much more persuasive if you understand, and are sympathetic towards, those who disagree.
Just because Krugman won a Nobel Prize doesn’t mean he’s right.
Regarding “Do you have so much money that this is a funny game to you?”…if you define “Poor” as living below the poverty line established by the U.S. Government, and “Rich” as defined by President Obama’s somewhat arbitrary and capricious definition as “a couple earning more than $250,000 per year”…
I have been “Poor” many, many more years than I have been “Rich”…
I truly desire every human being to have the best standard of living possible…but resentment towards the “Rich” does not get us there.
The expiration of the “Bush” tax cuts on the “Wealthy” is not good for this country.
I do not believe the upper two percent, reverting to the taxes they paid before Bush’s tax cuts, will hurt job creation. I believe Krugman.
If you profit from an educated work force. A system of laws that protects proprietary rights. An infrastructure that is still far above the average. Well then you should pay a higher percentage of tax.
To quibble about a five percent tax increase when you make $250,000 or more a year is at best selfish at worst unpatriotic. Social Security is on the table when that is the only income for a whole lot of people. That money will be put into the economy the minute it reaches senior citizens. To argue this small tax increase in the face of massive deficits, in no small part created by shortsighted tax cuts, is grating to me.
I like and read Krugman and I believe he makes $500,000 a year. I don’t resent the rich. I resent the greedy.
Salunga…sorry the week-old response.
Let’s see your true motivation…
How about if the “wealthy” pay the addition five percent…but are able to donate the money to the charity of their choosing…
Would you agree?
Say’s Law is not absolute. That is what we’ve learned in the last 30 years. Production creates demand only under certain conditions. It doesn’t work in the current circumstances. And it hasn’t worked in the current circumstance because without $780 billion in the ARRA there would have been no increase in production. And the whole purpose of the ARRA was to increase demand.
Krugman in this case is correct. On the data. It is not a matter of belief, except in conservative circles.
People who work can’t wait 10-15 years for businesses to decide that maybe they might need a couple of new workers.
And workers are tired of bribing businesses to take actions that are really in the long-term financial interests of the businesses.
Prior to the 1960s, small business used to know this.
The fact is that employment and compensation increases demand. And increased productivity ensures that production will increase without increasing demand because businesses don’t need to hire as many folks to deal with the increases in production.
What has gone up in the past 30 years is productivity. What hasn’t is wages and salaries for ordinary workers and profits for honest-to-goodness local small businesses.
How do you do that orange square thing?
Increased productivity without commensurate increases in wages and salaries are a result of the absolutely pathetic, government monopoly schools in this country. Workers are absolutely not being given the skills to justify earning the higher wages that should come with increased productivity.
Just compare the average e-mail written in a company today as opposed to ten years ago. Or lack of the most basic math skills.
We need to inject competition into our school system–that’s why someone like Chris Christie is a hero to right-wing radicals–competition is anathema to the teachers’ unions.
That is pure bullshit. People who lack the basic skills cannot contribute to increases in productivity. The problems is that managers and owners have decided to pay themselves more of the revenues generated by increased productivity and their workers less just because they have the market power to do that. And it has come around to bite them with a loss of customers.
Teachers need to be freed to teach and stop with the testing BS that is wasting education funds by paying large testing corporations. The tests are crap.
And Chris Christie is an ass who has cost his state $700 million and counting.
Chrisite is a hero for bashing unions.
Hh prances around and congratulates himself at every opportunity.
Tarheel…you and I are running out of margin…let’s continue this some other time.
All due respect…the educational system in this country is f…ing bullshit…and so are the teachers’ unions.
They are afraid of competition.
That is the problem with the Government that you love so much…it protects people from competition…it prevents them from striving to be their best. That’s why radical right-wingers like me don’t like Government.
A Great Society can only be realized by Great Individuals who strive for excellence.
The orange squares are called "blockquotes" and you can make them by putting the following tags in.
<blockquote>insert whatever your text is here, and when you are finished, add a closing </blockquote>
That will give you an orange square around your text.
Thank you!
So how do I communicate my support to Pelsoi and her opponents? She has to stand against the WH, the Senate, and Hoyer’s wing.
I recommend the term DEFEPO (= “DEmocrat For Electoral Purposes Only”).
But Booman… then why did you seem to advocate, before the election, that Obama temporarily extend the tax breaks for the top 3% as a means of compromise with the Republicans? Wouldn’t he have scored more points with the electorate if had adopted Pelosi’s more principled stand of opposing those tax cuts (had the Dems had the cajones to permit a vote on this issue)?