The Bush Tax Cuts

[FreakyLocz14]

What is your position on the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts?

My position is to permanently extend the tax cuts on the middle class and temporarily extend the cuts for the wealthy. The last thing we need is for taxes to be raised when we are just coming out a recession. Please be aware that the wealthiest American's employee most of the middle class that work in the private sector. The last thing we need is for companies to find excuses to lay-off workers and outsource jobs in order to avoid paying higher taxes. I also find it funny that President Obama is so concerned about the deficit now, but he and his rubber stamp Congress added trillions of dollars to it in the forms of bailouts and stimulus spending legislation that has done little to boost the economy.

 

[Livewire]

Well they've been extended for at least two years, which for now, is good, given the current economic situation.

However.

They need to either expire or be amended. Leave the middle class taxation rate where it is for now, but either step up the rate for the rich or let the cuts on them expire. If the tax cuts for the wealthy (Over 250K) were left to expire, it would reduce the federal deficit by 700 million dollars over the next 10 years.

Lets not forget it was the very same Mr. Bush who began the entire bailout/stimulus process in 2007-8. ;) And, for awhile in early-mid 09, the economy did recover some.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well they've been extended for at least two years, which for now, is good, given the current economic situation.

However.

They need to either expire or be amended. Leave the middle class taxation rate where it is for now, but either step up the rate for the rich or let the cuts on them expire. If the tax cuts for the wealthy (Over 250K) were left to expire, it would reduce the federal deficit by 700 million dollars over the next 10 years.

Lets not forget it was the very same Mr. Bush who began the entire bailout/stimulus process in 2007-8. ;) And, for awhile in early-mid 09, the economy did recover some.

The size of the deficit, while important, must come second fiddle to the ability of large corporation owned and operated by those wealthy Americans' ability to hire more workers. In two years, we need to analyze whether or not letting the cuts expire will create that risk.

 

[Morkula]

I'm disappointed beyond words that Obama let the Republicans walk all over him to get these tax cuts extended for the wealthy. Hopefully congressional Democrats curb it, but I highly doubt it at this point. The deficit is out of control, and extending the tax cuts will be the biggest contributor to the debt over the next ten years. Democrats in congress should have used reconciliation to push through their plan (end tax cuts for the wealthy, extend them for middle class) since that's the same tactic the Republicans used to pass the cuts during the Bush years, but I'm becoming thoroughly convinced that the number of Democrats with a spine enough to do that can be counted on one hand.

We can't afford the tax cuts, but we can't afford to raise taxes on the middle class either. However, if the cuts had been allowed to expire, Democrats could have come up with their own tax cut plan after the beginning of the year to replace them. That would have been the smartest thing to do if they couldn't get the original plan through. But instead we're stuck with this extra several billion dollars we'll be borrowing from China to pay for these tax cuts - and of course if Republicans take control of congress (or even the Presidency) in 2012, these cuts will become permanent. When China inevitably overtakes the US as the world's #1 economy within the next 20 years, we can largely thank the Republicans.

And the way they did it...they basically held the middle class and the unemployed hostage until they got their big care package for the wealthiest 2% (who are really the only people the Repubs represent - the wealthy and the corporations). And Obama (and a lot of congressional Dems) actually let them do it! Being left-leaning myself, I can't help but feel frustration and anger at Obama and the Democratic party for letting this happen. Obama has bungled a good number of his campaign promises, and this has just been another one to add to the list. I really wish that he'd stop pandering to the Republicans and the corporations and show some progressive leadership like he campaigned on.

And FreakyLocz, you're spouting off the classic GOP talking point that "It's the wealthy that create jobs, and these tax cuts for them will allow them to create jobs." Let's take a look at how these tax cuts created a lot of jobs during the Bush years...

Oh wait. Job growth under Bush 43 was the lowest in recent memory. The people benefiting from the tax cuts for the wealthy are not going to use the money to create jobs - they're going to pocket it and add it to their mountains of personal wealth, while the middle class gets trampled underneath.

Right now tax rates are lower than they've ever been. Even the Reagan years had higher taxes than now. The GOP is practically giving billions of dollars to the rich to make them richer...but I guess that's more important than running an efficient government or decreasing the deficit.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'm disappointed beyond words that Obama let the Republicans walk all over him to get these tax cuts extended for the wealthy. Hopefully congressional Democrats curb it, but I highly doubt it at this point. The deficit is out of control, and extending the tax cuts will be the biggest contributor to the debt over the next ten years. Democrats in congress should have used reconciliation to push through their plan (end tax cuts for the wealthy, extend them for middle class) since that's the same tactic the Republicans used to pass the cuts during the Bush years, but I'm becoming thoroughly convinced that the number of Democrats with a spine enough to do that can be counted on one hand.

We can't afford the tax cuts, but we can't afford to raise taxes on the middle class either. However, if the cuts had been allowed to expire, Democrats could have come up with their own tax cut plan after the beginning of the year to replace them. That would have been the smartest thing to do if they couldn't get the original plan through. But instead we're stuck with this extra several billion dollars we'll be borrowing from China to pay for these tax cuts - and of course if Republicans take control of congress (or even the Presidency) in 2012, these cuts will become permanent. When China inevitably overtakes the US as the world's #1 economy within the next 20 years, we can largely thank the Republicans.

And the way they did it...they basically held the middle class and the unemployed hostage until they got their big care package for the wealthiest 2% (who are really the only people the Repubs represent - the wealthy and the corporations). And Obama (and a lot of congressional Dems) actually let them do it! Being left-leaning myself, I can't help but feel frustration and anger at Obama and the Democratic party for letting this happen. Obama has bungled a good number of his campaign promises, and this has just been another one to add to the list. I really wish that he'd stop pandering to the Republicans and the corporations and show some progressive leadership like he campaigned on.

And FreakyLocz, you're spouting off the classic GOP talking point that "It's the wealthy that create jobs, and these tax cuts for them will allow them to create jobs." Let's take a look at how these tax cuts created a lot of jobs during the Bush years...

Oh wait. Job growth under Bush 43 was the lowest in recent memory. The people benefiting from the tax cuts for the wealthy are not going to use the money to create jobs - they're going to pocket it and add it to their mountains of personal wealth, while the middle class gets trampled underneath.

Right now tax rates are lower than they've ever been. Even the Reagan years had higher taxes than now. The GOP is practically giving billions of dollars to the rich to make them richer...but I guess that's more important than running an efficient government or decreasing the deficit.

That data leaves out a crucial factor. During the Roosevelt years, we were in the Great Depression, and we came out of it during World War II. Job growth grew so much in response to the war industries that sprouted. This had little to do with Roosevelt or Congressional Democrat's policies. During the Bush years, the economy was thriving and there wasn't much need for employment growth. The economic meltdown began in 2007. This was the time the Democrats came into power after the 2006 midterm elections, where they took the majority in both house of Congress. I'll admit that Bush went lame duck and just gave into the new Congress' demands with the bailouts because he wasn't able to run for re-election again. We all know what happens when you raise taxes on the wealthy. Since they are the people who run the private sector industries, they will lay-off workers and outsource jobs.

And I seriously doubt any Democrats are going to show any spine at this point. Those that either survived the 2010 election cycle or weren't up for re-election in 2010 are more concerned with saving their skins in the 2012 elections than sticking up for their principles. This can also be said of the Republicans as well, however. This is why the Tea Party candidates made won primaries, and some won their election bids, in this election cycle. I think they'll make some more gains in 2012 if things don't change in Washington. Hell, we may even end up with a Tea Party President.

 

[Livewire]

That data leaves out a crucial factor. During the Roosevelt years, we were in the Great Depression, and we came out of it during World War II. Job growth grew so much in response to the war industries that sprouted. This had little to do with Roosevelt or Congressional Democrat's policies.

Little to do with those policies?

No, the war alone did not bring us out of the Depression, because the Depression was consider to be over long before 1941. Plus, once the war was over, those war-oriented jobs disappeared, and we didn't sink back into the Depression. It was the New Deal, and the sweeping social reforms and entitlement programs, like the WPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Housing Administration, and many, many more that sprouted from it that took us out of the depression.

Also, lets not forget the Tea Party flops in AK, DE, NV, etc, cost the Republicans the Senate, which makes their division more evident. Give it some more time, and who knows what can happen. But I highly doubt the Tea Party could elect a President, seeing as they couldn't even beat Harry Reid.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Little to do with those policies?

No, the war alone did not bring us out of the Depression, because the Depression was consider to be over long before 1941. Plus, once the war was over, those war-oriented jobs disappeared, and we didn't sink back into the Depression. It was the New Deal, and the sweeping social reforms and entitlement programs, like the WPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Housing Administration, and many, many more that sprouted from it that took us out of the depression.

Also, lets not forget the Tea Party flops in AK, DE, NV, etc, cost the Republicans the Senate, which makes their division more evident. Give it some more time, and who knows what can happen. But I highly doubt the Tea Party could elect a President, seeing as they couldn't even beat Harry Reid.

The Depression actually started to fade in 1939 when our trade with Europe boosted in response to the War starting over there. The New Deal had temporary, immediate effectiveness, but as far as permanently ending the Depression, we can thank the War for that. And military careers and spending didn't completely end after 1945. We got into the Cold War and the arms race very soon after the War had ended.

And how did the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Alaska Senate Seat? That seat went to Republican Lisa Murkowski. Although I'm not the biggest fan of the Tea Party, I would blame the lack of a GOP Senate majority on the division within the Republican Party and the GOP establishment's failure to sufficiently back GOP candidates. Also a big factor is that all 435 seats in the House are always up for grabs every two years, this year being no different, while only 1/3 of the Senate was up for grabs. If all of the Senate was up for grabs, I would expect it's composition to look rather red.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Little to do with those policies?

No, the war alone did not bring us out of the Depression, because the Depression was consider to be over long before 1941. Plus, once the war was over, those war-oriented jobs disappeared, and we didn't sink back into the Depression. It was the New Deal, and the sweeping social reforms and entitlement programs, like the WPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Housing Administration, and many, many more that sprouted from it that took us out of the depression.

Also, lets not forget the Tea Party flops in AK, DE, NV, etc, cost the Republicans the Senate, which makes their division more evident. Give it some more time, and who knows what can happen. But I highly doubt the Tea Party could elect a President, seeing as they couldn't even beat Harry Reid.

Hey come on now Reid's opponent wasn't the best choice anyways...besides the Tea party still managed to make a wave which can't be denied...but I fell like I'm getting off topic...
Now back on topic I think that the tax cuts should expire for the middle class and high class when we are in firm ground in order to combat the deficit, we also need to cut back on the entitlement plans which ironically along with the two wars lead to the very deficit we have now...oh irony is rich...

 

[Constantinople]

Families making $1 million+ should not be receiving tax cuts.

 

[Red1530]

I am glad they extended the tax cuts for the next two years. I would of preferred that the tax cut have been made permanent. The current proposal will allow small business to have certainty for their tax rates.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I am glad they extended the tax cuts for the next two years. I would of preferred that the tax cut have been made permanent. The current proposal will allow small business to have certainty for their tax rates.

True, we should keep the tax breaks for small business' longer than any other group :)

 

[Richard Lynch]

I strongly believe the whole "the rich needs tax cuts so they can employ" thing is a total myth. The upper 1% has no interest in creating jobs unless they have to - they're interested in more wealth. That's why they're sending jobs overseas and that's why during Bush's reign of terror, while they got those tax cuts, the economy still fell.

I still can not comprehend how the Republicans can get the middle class to vote and support things that work against their benefits. They've always done it, and they somehow do it extremely well.

I agree with Morkula - the Democrats need, if you'll excuse the expression, a Bushian set of balls. They have to learn to look the Republicans in the eyes and say: "I don't care what you think; we're in power now, so deal with it."

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I strongly believe the whole "the rich needs tax cuts so they can employ" thing is a total myth. The upper 1% has no interest in creating jobs unless they have to - they're interested in more wealth. That's why they're sending jobs overseas and that's why during Bush's reign of terror, while they got those tax cuts, the economy still fell.

I still can not comprehend how the Republicans can get the middle class to vote and support things that work against their benefits. They've always done it, and they somehow do it extremely well.

I agree with Morkula - the Democrats need, if you'll excuse the expression, a Bushian set of balls. They have to learn to look the Republicans in the eyes and say: "I don't care what you think; we're in power now, so deal with it."

The thing is, the Democrats won't be in complete power come next month. President Obama doesn't want to fight with the new mostly Republican controlled Congress any more than he has too. Obama must stand for re-election in 2012, and if he appears unwilling to reach across the aisle, that would damage his credibility during his re-election bid. The same goes for Congressional Democrats who will be facing re-election in 2012.

Businesses lay-off and send jobs overseas because they're over-regulated. Complain about how selfish that may be, but they'll continue to do it unless taxes are lowered and regulations are loosened on them. Why hire workers in America when it's cheaper to hire workers in China or India? Yes, I know it sucks that businesses are out to do whatever makes them more money; but that's just how things are.

 

[Purple_Haze]

I think trickle down could work but not by itself it needs to be implemented in addition to massive cuts in spending. Thats why it failed under Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the younger they ended up spending more than what the trickle down policies allowed them to take in. But as of now it doesnt make sense to extend them.

 

[Esper]

Businesses lay-off and send jobs overseas because they're over-regulated. Complain about how selfish that may be, but they'll continue to do it unless taxes are lowered and regulations are loosened on them. Why hire workers in America when it's cheaper to hire workers in China or India? Yes, I know it sucks that businesses are out to do whatever makes them more money; but that's just how things are.

The really funny thing about regulation is that if you ask people about it a lot will say there is too much, but when you ask them which regulations they would remove they often don't have an answer because they (rightfully) don't want to give up on safety protection and so on. We need regulation to keep businesses accountable.

Giving more money to corporations isn't going to create more jobs. They'll just pocket the money, not hire more workers, and voila their profit margins are up. Profits make the shareholders happy and those are the only people these businesses really care about helping. It's ridiculous that we're giving them tax breaks.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The really funny thing about regulation is that if you ask people about it a lot will say there is too much, but when you ask them which regulations they would remove they often don't have an answer because they (rightfully) don't want to give up on safety protection and so on. We need regulation to keep businesses accountable.

Giving more money to corporations isn't going to create more jobs. They'll just pocket the money, not hire more workers, and voila their profit margins are up. Profits make the shareholders happy and those are the only people these businesses really care about helping. It's ridiculous that we're giving them tax breaks.

We can keep buninesses accountable or keep them hiring in this country. Sure, there will always be retail positions because they need people to staff their stores that are located in the U.S., but these are usually the lowest paying jobs within the company. I just feel like the lefist view that if we increase taxes and regulation on businesses, then they're just going to magically comply instead of packing up shop and doing business where it's cheaper is nothing more than wishful thinking. I know that we can't stop outsourcing entirely, but we need to stop pushing businesses out of this country with excess taxation and regulation. This is simple competition I'm talking about. If you run a business, your goal is to make that business as profitable as possible. Naturally, you will set up shop wherever it's cheapest to run your business. It's unrealistic wishful thinking to believe that we can encourage businesses to be benevolent instead of self-concerned. It's human nature to be self-concered and greedy, after all.

 

[Livewire]

We can keep buninesses accountable or keep them hiring in this country. Sure, there will always be retail positions because they need people to staff their stores that are located in the U.S., but these are usually the lowest paying jobs within the company. I just feel like the lefist view that if we increase taxes and regulation on businesses, then they're just going to magically comply instead of packing up shop and doing business where it's cheaper is nothing more than wishful thinking. I know that we can't stop outsourcing entirely, but we need to stop pushing businesses out of this country with excess taxation and regulation. This is simple competition I'm talking about. If you run a business, your goal is to make that business as profitable as possible. Naturally, you will set up shop wherever it's cheapest to run your business. It's unrealistic wishful thinking to believe that we can encourage businesses to be benevolent instead of self-concerned. It's human nature to be self-concered and greedy, after all.

Taxes aren't pushing them out, Greed is. Why have a Nike plant in California, paying American citizens 8.00 an hour, when all the big corporations can pay some Vietnamese child 20 cents on the dollar for the same amount of work?

It's all about profit and money to them. And, their taxes have been low for quite some time, and yet, I see no jobs being created from them. If what you said were true, the economy wouldn't be in as bad of shape as it currently is.

 

[Richard Lynch]

We can keep buninesses accountable or keep them hiring in this country. Sure, there will always be retail positions because they need people to staff their stores that are located in the U.S., but these are usually the lowest paying jobs within the company. I just feel like the lefist view that if we increase taxes and regulation on businesses, then they're just going to magically comply instead of packing up shop and doing business where it's cheaper is nothing more than wishful thinking. I know that we can't stop outsourcing entirely, but we need to stop pushing businesses out of this country with excess taxation and regulation. This is simple competition I'm talking about. If you run a business, your goal is to make that business as profitable as possible. Naturally, you will set up shop wherever it's cheapest to run your business. It's unrealistic wishful thinking to believe that we can encourage businesses to be benevolent instead of self-concerned. It's human nature to be self-concered and greedy, after all.

In science, and in particular, chemical analysis, we have something called a "blank", which is usually a baseline by which to judge any sort of fluctuation. We can have the same thing here, and it would still be competitive, it would still foster profit. Just raise the "blank" a bit further up all round, nation-wide. What you're saying might be true, if it were on a state-by-state basis, but if it were across the entire country, then it's tough crap for the businesses. Where are they gonna go then? Kenya?

And I say poop on the human nature thing. Human nature involves many, many things that are outlawed and generally thought poorly upon. Greed and Capitalism will one day be shown as one of those. People like you, who see it as something that cannot be changed, allow it to not be changed. Whether by conditioning or acceptance, something has gotta happen in this country, or else I wouldn't mind supporting a revolution.

 

[Bay]

Taxes aren't pushing them out, Greed is. Why have a Nike plant in California, paying American citizens 8.00 an hour, when all the big corporations can pay some Vietnamese child 20 cents on the dollar for the same amount of work?

It's all about profit and money to them. And, their taxes have been low for quite some time, and yet, I see no jobs being created from them. If what you said were true, the economy wouldn't be in as bad of shape as it currently is.

If I remember correctly, there has been jobs created after the Bush tax cuts a few years ago, moreso small businesses. Back then, I would see a lot of small businesses hiring at the county where I live. Also during around that time, the economy has been going quite well until the housing market going crazy and other stuff, hence the economy we have now.

And I say poop on the human nature thing. Human nature involves many, many things that are outlawed and generally thought poorly upon. Greed and Capitalism will one day be shown as one of those. People like you, who see it as something that cannot be changed, allow it to not be changed. Whether by conditioning or acceptance, something has gotta happen in this country, or else I wouldn't mind supporting a revolution.

I really don't know if a change in the way US capitalism works will make things better. The US pretty much accepted capitalism as the way to make the economy going for a while, even if greed and such is involved. Nothing is perfect. Guess what I'm trying to say is if it's working, don't fix it.

Onto the question, I'm pretty much agreeing with FreakyLocz14 on the Bush tax cuts. There are many businesses that would like to hire some people, but they're waiting on the final decision of that. Then again, I graduated from university with a business degree, so I'm pretty much hoping for the extension. >.>

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Taxes aren't pushing them out, Greed is. Why have a Nike plant in California, paying American citizens 8.00 an hour, when all the big corporations can pay some Vietnamese child 20 cents on the dollar for the same amount of work?

It's all about profit and money to them. And, their taxes have been low for quite some time, and yet, I see no jobs being created from them. If what you said were true, the economy wouldn't be in as bad of shape as it currently is.

Yes, that may be greed, but it's also reality. You can't deny that business will do this no matter how much moral shame you cast on them. You have to appease their greed if you want businesses to stay in this country as much as reasonably possible.

In science, and in particular, chemical analysis, we have something called a "blank", which is usually a baseline by which to judge any sort of fluctuation. We can have the same thing here, and it would still be competitive, it would still foster profit. Just raise the "blank" a bit further up all round, nation-wide. What you're saying might be true, if it were on a state-by-state basis, but if it were across the entire country, then it's tough crap for the businesses. Where are they gonna go then? Kenya?

And I say poop on the human nature thing. Human nature involves many, many things that are outlawed and generally thought poorly upon. Greed and Capitalism will one day be shown as one of those. People like you, who see it as something that cannot be changed, allow it to not be changed. Whether by conditioning or acceptance, something has gotta happen in this country, or else I wouldn't mind supporting a revolution.

They'll go to Kenya if it's cheaper to hire workers there. Big business will outsource anywhere that's cheap.