In which logic flips itself on its head and introduces new wrinkles.
We are not going to be able to come up with comprehensive tax reform package that gets it all done just in the next two weeks. We are not going to be able to come up with necessarily a comprehensive entitlement reform package that gets it all done in the next two weeks. When you look at what Ronald Reagan did back in 1986 working with Bill Bradley and others, that was a year-and-a-half process … Let’s essentially put a down payment on taxes. Let’s let taxes on upper-income folks go up.President Obama • Demanding an end to top-end Bush tax cuts during his first post-election interview with Bloomberg News’ Julianna Goldman. While he may have signaled some willingness to compromise, the President told Goldman that Republicans needed to give more, and that the most recent “fiscal cliff” proposal from Speaker Boehner was “still out of balance.” source
Just remember to extend those tax cuts costs $1tn dollars over 10 years. There is no way we can get back to a balanced plan that put us back on the path to living within our means, protects Medicare, invests in things we need, if you extend those tax cuts.Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner • Discussing the role of the Bush-era tax cuts in the current fiscal cliff crisis. The Obama administration’s continuing stance? For higher wage-earners, the cuts must go away. The Obama administration in general is pushing for ways to raise revenue to deal with the debut crisis. But don’t expect any assistance from House Speaker John Boehner, who says that if Obama gets the $1.6 trillion in revenue he’s looking to raise, “He’s going to spend it.” What do you guys think is going to happen with the fiscal cliff?
We have to continue to grow our economy — we need to grow it from the middle class out. Millionaires and billionaires — they don’t need a tax cut. They’re not struggling in this economy. They’ve done well even as the middle class has shrunk.Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs • Speaking about the president’s upcoming speech, where he’s expected to push for an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts on those making less than $250,000 — but no extension of the tax cuts on levels above that. (The long-term goal is to make them permanent, as he’s pushed in the past, but this is for one year.) This is likely to make Republicans ticked, because they want the cuts extended for everyone. But if they can’t figure out how to handle this by January 1, the cuts will be cancelled for everyone. What are the odds that this will be dragged out until December 29th?
I wish they weren’t called the ‘Bush tax cuts.’Former President George W. Bush, revealing that the his most prominent remaining namesake in national politics is one he’d rather not have. That’s not to say he has any regrets about his tax-cutting ethos — much to the contrary, his speech was insisting on more money left in the hands of upper-income earners — but he believes that with a less polarizing name attached, there’d be less risk of the rates going back up. That’s pretty honest self-awareness, all things considered.
(Source: forbes.com)
Obama vs. Romney on tax rates: As you can see, rates are largely the same—except for the nation’s richest and poorest. The poor would pay almost twice as much in taxes under Romney’s plan; meanwhile, the very richest in the country would be forced to cough up about 10% more of their income under Obama. The net effect? In short, Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenues to about 17% of GDP—down .9% from where they are now. Obama’s budget would raise revenues 19.2%, with most of that money coming from those making over $250,000 a year (Graphic and data courtesy of The Washington Post / Tax Policy Center).
If tax cuts create jobs, why didn’t the Bush tax cuts work?On-point question by the National Journal’s Beth Reinhard. Newt blamed the timing for its failure to work. (Reposting because it’s a good quote and Tumblr’s acting weird tonight.)
» Hitting the road: A group of OWS protesters have embarked on this lengthy walk, expecting to arrive in Washington DC on November 23rd, the congressional committee deadline on whether to keep the Bush-era tax cuts extensions President Obama agreed to last year. The Occupy movement, obviously, would like to see these cuts expire; while this would raise the tax burden of middle-income Americans to a remote extent, it would also cause a very large influx of revenue from the class most buoyed by the Bush tax policy — that vaunted 1%. The march consists of a mere dozen or so protesters right now, but they expect (we suspect rightly) to gain large numbers as they work their way towards the capitol.
In her last days, my mother occasionally became confused....
”The reporter...
I can’t add much to what’s already been (and will be) ...
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
#FMMDI (at 30 Rockefeller Plaza)
Helpful reminder from Clusterstock that Bush drove us into this ditch, and a full rundown of downgrade reporting.
Very helpful indeed.
jvbrewer said: My problem with this graph is that it misrepresents presidential decision-making as the creation of new initiatives. President Obama has chosen to continue many of President Bush’s military and tax policies, yet this is not indicated in the graphic.
markreagan said: Also important to note is 8 years of spending compared to three years. It’s really not fair to use projections for a fair comparison. I am not a Bush lover, or Obama lover … just saying … this is data manipulation…
» SFB says: We got a handful of interesting responses to this post, and just wanted to note them. (This one too.) This chart does note some interesting things — and it does put into perspective some interesting numbers, particularly comparing the various stimulus measures and such. But you do have to be aware that there are always caveats when dealing with charts like these — especially when comparing actual numbers to things that haven’t happened yet (projections vs. history). Who knows? Maybe in a year or two Obama will come up with some insane stimulus bigger than the Bush tax cuts, throwing this chart out of whack. Maybe health care will turn out to save money in the long run. Either way, it’s good to emphasize that there are dissenting opinions to the New York Times’ chart. — Ernie @ SFB
This graph, courtesy of the New York Times, has been making the rounds today, and it’s worth examining. Note that health care reform, much-maligned by the right as deficit-killer, cost less than even the most inexpensive of George W. Bush’s policies (that policy being Medicare Part D). Note also that the Bush tax cuts alone added more to the deficit than all of President Obama’s new policies combined — and that’s including projected spending over the course of a theoretical second term. source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
