Teeing Up the Middle Class

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328552267381152.html

Few of President Obama?s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year ?will not see their taxes increase by a single dime? if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It?s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.
Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS?s ?Face the Nation,? White House economist Larry Summers wouldn?t repeat Mr. Obama?s pre-election promise. ?It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,? Mr. Summers said?except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC?s ?This Week,? Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama?s vow and said, ?We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that?s going to require some very hard choices.?
These aren?t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.
The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn?t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that ?the Rich Can?t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.? And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that ?This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that?s a basically unstable way of governing.? They?re right, but where were they during the campaign?
View Full Image



<CITE>Associated Press</CITE> Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner




In an editorial on February 26, ?The 2% Illusion,? we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.
Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won?t raise enough money. So they?re proposing an income tax surcharge on ?the wealthy,? but that won?t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.
Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children?s health-care expansion. They?re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they?re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don?t purchase health insurance. But this won?t raise enough money either.
So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama?s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.
The undeniable reality is that you can?t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It?s looking more and more like Mr. Obama?s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have always been partial to term grifter vs confidence man
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
It's strange that after all these years of saying that lowering tax rates raises tax revenues, the WSJ is now saying that to raise tax revenues we're going to have to raise taxes.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama stands by his campaign vow not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans to deal with rising budget deficits or pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health-care system, his spokesman said.

?The president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle-class families,? White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday. ?I don?t think any economist would believe that in the environment that we?re in raising taxes on middle-class families would make any sense. And the president agrees.?

Gibbs was responding to questions about remarks made Aug. 2 by two of Obama?s top economic advisers that the government needed to bring deficits under control to ensure growth. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers in separate interviews left the door open to tax increases to deal with budget shortfalls.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
It's strange that after all these years of saying that lowering tax rates raises tax revenues, the WSJ is now saying that to raise tax revenues we're going to have to raise taxes.

Lets see your an accountant so no excuse there.

--are you still siding with pelosi and crew that GW tax cuts would bankrupt american--or would you like me to put up the #'s of record tax revenues it produced?

Granted we are now in recession--but you forget GW came in office in the dot.com recession--which was immediatedly followed by 911 economy collapse--with world.com-enron-katrina fiascos thrown in--

--and came out of it all while fighting 2 wars to boot--with market all time high--record employment-tax cut/record tax revenue

and guess what--I can't find anywhere where he personally blamed preceding admin for any problems--he did what leaders do-

Unlike your boy Gumby-- a character issue--wouldn't you say.

I don't guess we could get a wager on any economic #'s employment-inflation-etc comparing GW 4th year to Gumby's in 2012--
I didn't think so.:)
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
That's what I'm saying - all we have to do to raise revenues, according to you and the WSJ is to lower taxes.

So, why are they and you now saying that we have to raise them?

It all seems so . . . .typical
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I see you're still hanging your hat on the tax revenues produced under Bush - anyone with any knowledge of economics that has witnessed what has happened in subsequent years due to those tax revenues being funded almost completely with credit and buying more than people could afford. No cash purchases, no savings, chasing ridiculous investment schemes, trying to work credit cards and no-money mortgages to take advantage of the system. A lot of those people are wealthy (or were) and were working a system to try to make money hand over fist. Of course there were taxes paid on all of that crap. But not real, productive tax revenue, I don't think. Just speculative revenue, made on credit, often, bad credit that was extended knowingly by others trying to make money.

THAT - is why there were tax revenues under Bush - as you point out there were many areas of suckage during his administration that dragged things down - so it's easy to take credit for all of that - when all of that is the main reason we're in the tank right now. You took credit (still do, I guess :shrug: ) for credit based tax revenues - and then ignore that is the reason things are bad now.

Nice way to look at things, Wayne - convenient, sounds good, but doesn't add up.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
That's what I'm saying - all we have to do to raise revenues, according to you and the WSJ is to lower taxes.

So, why are they and you now saying that we have to raise them?

It all seems so . . . .typical

I'm not blaming the tax revenue reduction on O Bobby--it came with the recession

I can't speak for WSJ but IMO lowering tax revenue would be out of question at this particular stage of economy--only thing worse would be raising them.

O has put himself in trap of overspending already and trying to spend more--he has no option but to raise taxes--which is like pouring gas on a fire.

I expect his healthcare reform is done for most part--we will get some highly watered down version--so he can claim some moral victory.

Out of curiosity which tax increases would you and Chad for.

increased
-income tax on rich
-carbon tax
-gas tax
-value added tax
-coke chip fast food or anything else they think they can justify -lets call what gov says is good for you-tax

You might note these will be in addition to letting Bush tax cuts expire in 2011.

There is absolutly no question the O admin will have the largest spending spree and tax increase in history.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
There is absolutly [sic] no question the O admin will have the largest spending spree and tax increase in history.

Not so fast and loose, doggy.

The greatest spending spree in history (of the USA; I assume that's what you meant) happened under F.D. Roosevelt.

The greatest tax spree was under Eisenhower and Kennedy. Here, take a peek for yourself.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Lookee there, top marginal tax rates of 90%+.

The neocon line is that high marginal tax rates kill investment and prosperity, so tell us, doggy, why were the 50s and 60s a time of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity?

Stop it with the facts, I do not wish to be further confused - Dogs That Bark
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Not so fast and loose, doggy.

The greatest spending spree in history (of the USA; I assume that's what you meant) happened under F.D. Roosevelt.

The greatest tax spree was under Eisenhower and Kennedy. Here, take a peek for yourself.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Lookee there, top marginal tax rates of 90%+.

The neocon line is that high marginal tax rates kill investment and prosperity, so tell us, doggy, why were the 50s and 60s a time of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity?

Stop it with the facts, I do not wish to be further confused - Dogs That Bark

Next the Lying Dog will try to compare kennedy's tax cut from 90% to the Neocon Bush's cut of 39% to 35%.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
The neocon line is that high marginal tax rates kill investment and prosperity, so tell us, doggy, why were the 50s and 60s a time of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity?
Oops... looks like doggy left a little poo there he needs to clean up.

pyzamdogchores.jpg
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
I'm not blaming the tax revenue reduction on O Bobby--it came with the recession

I can't speak for WSJ but IMO lowering tax revenue would be out of question at this particular stage of economy--only thing worse would be raising them.

O has put himself in trap of overspending already and trying to spend more--he has no option but to raise taxes--which is like pouring gas on a fire.

I expect his healthcare reform is done for most part--we will get some highly watered down version--so he can claim some moral victory.

Out of curiosity which tax increases would you and Chad for.

increased
-income tax on rich
-carbon tax
-gas tax
-value added tax
-coke chip fast food or anything else they think they can justify -lets call what gov says is good for you-tax

You might note these will be in addition to letting Bush tax cuts expire in 2011.

There is absolutly no question the O admin will have the largest spending spree and tax increase in history.

Nevermind, DTB. I think you're missing my point and I might be missing yours and I don't know where the thread is going, so I'll wait 'til it comes up again.

Have fun this weekend!
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Not so fast and loose, doggy.

The greatest spending spree in history (of the USA; I assume that's what you meant) happened under F.D. Roosevelt.

The greatest tax spree was under Eisenhower and Kennedy. Here, take a peek for yourself.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Lookee there, top marginal tax rates of 90%+.

The neocon line is that high marginal tax rates kill investment and prosperity, so tell us, doggy, why were the 50s and 60s a time of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity?

Stop it with the facts, I do not wish to be further confused - Dogs That Bark

--wtf does tax rates have to do with tax increase--duh

Your boy gumby only been in 8 months--doues the word quadruple mean anything--

--as I said before though--I can understand your being for taxing the productive to compensate yourselfs-

-I would assume when you found out 1/3 of stimulus would be for social programs for "the vulnerable" you and your daily kos family were celebrating -- :)

Ace%20Dance.gif
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top