E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFormer Gov. John Sununu, R-N.H., explains what's wrong with extending the middle class tax cuts now and continuing the argument over the tax cuts for the top two percent.
Discuss this post
Leave a Comment:You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Most popular posts
older
GOP frets about swing state toll on Romney from Bain attacks
newer
Romney throws back 'outsourcing' charge at Obama
Obama spent all weekend coming up with this successful diversion from last Friday's jobs report.
Extending the cuts have not produced JOBS. If you listen to Republicans they've been saying tax cuts produce jobs for over 30 years now. Yet America is not seeing the so-called "job creators" creating jobs. These guys are outsourcing jobs. In 2010 Republicans ran on creating jobs yet they haven't passed any bills that would do that. They have blocked the JOBS ACT, a bill that would have created a few million jobs. Why is that?
Republicans forget --Reagan raised taxes during a recession. He raised income taxes, payroll taxes and he raised capital gains taxes. The world didn't fall apart.
End the cuts for the upper quintiles. They can afford it.
So then why does obama want to extend the tax cuts?
Again, obama got the ACA passed, why not the jobs bill?
The upper 'quintiles' are leaving my friend. 100% of nothing is nothing.
The entire Republican platform from voodoo economics to neocon foreign policy to religious radicalism is taking the GOP/TP down. And a plutocrat like Romney is the worst possible candidate Teapublicans could nominate.
The data clearly shows that tax cuts don't create jobs--rather middle class demand does, job creators are not the richest 1%, tax cuts for the rich don't "trickle down" and don't pay for themselves--rather this only increases deficits, the "invisible hand" and market does not correct itself, and deregulation does not create jobs either--only crisis.
JP Morgan's loss, last reported at 3 billion may increase as high as 9 billion. Had this happened to a bank will less profits to cover this loss, the tax payers may have been hit with another bail out. Barclays' recent scandal of tampering with LIBOR rates is all the more appalling. Yet the Teapublicans are fighting Dodd-Frank (which ain't even Glass Steagall), currently trying to block caps on speculation so that the price of gas won't fluctuate so wildly -- thereby helping not just consumers at the pump but also businesses and the economy. More sabotage in the hopes of victory?
Dangerfield, you and your rightwing ignoramuses are heading toward extinction, and not soon enough. Boehner, Why, Why, Why? are you wasting tax dollars on another symbolic protest against ACA and more anti-abortion bills instead of governing and creating JOBS? Why won't you support extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class for another year? You want tax cuts AND you want to reduce the deficit -- Really?!!!
It's going to be made VERY clear who is at fault if all the Bush tax cuts expire -- the Republicans! If you think not, may we remind you of the debt ceiling debacle...
As for Romney, release your tax returns -- at least 3 years like Nixon. You CAN'T run for POTUS on one year's returns, especially with the questionable off-shore activity, no way no how. Clean up your act Republicans!
Do you think that Dodds-Frank should be applied to all banks or just the "too-big-to-fail"? That is the argument. Why should Dodds-Frank be applied to banks that do create a systemic risk to the financial system?
Alan, NJ -- All banks are potentially "too big to fail" as long as they risk FDIC deposits guaranteed by tax payers. We should just go back to the days when guaranteed deposits were separate from risky investment banking. Just do it for all banks, just do it. But the Barclays LIBOR scandal completely destroys faith in these banking institution, and what we now refer to as BANKSTERS. And who defends the Banksters? Alan, NJ and the GOP/TP.
Lest we become distracted with nitty gritty nonsense, rightwingers, feel free to explain why the Teapublicans can't just extend the Bush tax cuts for the 98% for another year. And why shouldn't Romney provide at least three years of tax returns (preferably more)? *crickets*
Obama's tax the rich gets him about 85 billion a year. That will float Obama's spending machine for 8 days!!
It will do nothing...but get people laid off.
It will also raise cost of goods and pay raises are out of the question.
Obama is simply playing politics .... AGAIN ! He only wants the 1 year extension to get him past the elections. After that, he will let the "Bush tax cuts" EXPIRE.... and all taxpayers will get an increase to support his planned redistribution of wealth !
Put the question directly to Obama : "Mr. President, If the United States were to do exactly as you say, and RAISE TAXES on the top 2 percent, how much revenue would that bring in ?" "Oh, and one more thing Mr. President, with all due respect sir ..... please tell us WHAT PERCENTAGE of last year's $1.3 trillion deficit would that cover ? "
Sunnunu just doesn't concern himself with the facts - he just glosses over statistics. And the idea that some of 29 billion in grants out of a 800 billion dollar stimulus was spent overseas is hardly surprising. Some of the equipment would have to be built overseas. Apparently, much of the 29 billion in grants that the GOP is harping on did NOT involve any spending overseas - according to bipartisan sources. So, again just lie if the facts get in the way. That's the Romney way. If you believe Romney, he would have NOT HAD A STIMULUS, other than more tax cuts to the "JOB CREATORS". Obama instead included large tax cuts for middle class and poor families in the stimulus. Tax cuts were actually about $250 billion of the stimulus. Much of the rest were block grants to states to help several states avoid bankruptcy. Most GOP governors took the money enthusiastically because they knew they had huge financial problems as a result of the mini-depression in progress when Obama took office. So, actually 400 to 500 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts and block grants to state governments.
Thank you for proving my point:)
How many jobs did we get out of $800,000,000,000.00?
And btw, another city is going bankrupt- Scranton, PA
Republicans want to pretend the stimulus did not work. They were against it so it could not have worked.
Never mind the fact that the countries in Europe who bought the austerity plan the republicans wanted to bring here to America are now in double-dipped recessions.
We need the American Jobs Act passed now. If the millionaires and billionaires have hundreds of millions to give to Romney to convince you to vote for tax cuts for the 1%, then they certainly have enough money for a small surcharge on their second million to put Americans back to work.
VOTE FOR TAX FAIRNESS....VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT 2012
Oh tax fairness? Yes of course:) 53% pay income tax. I guess half pay half don't pay is fair.
Why didn't obama address the jobs issue 3.5 years ago when he owned congress?
Tax cuts are unpopular with liberals. Not because they hurt the poor, but because they are insufficiently punitive of the rich.
Oh yes the repeat-a-lie about owning congress. Only problem with the numbers is they included Lieberman who campaigned with McCain as part of the democratic majority.
President Obama did pass a stimulus that has saved America from another recession. But the problem was the republicans would not let the stimulus be big enough. Especially when we found out our economy was much worse than we originally thought.
This was during the time you like to lie and claim democrats owned congress.
Your not concerned about tax fairness, you want the poor, the sick, the old to pay taxes but you think Romney should pay 14% taxes while the rest of working pay 30-35%.
I know republicans are short on math. But if the rich make say 90% of the money then they owe 90% of the taxes. Taxes are based on the money you make, not how many people live in this country.
You don't give the poor man $10 in pay and take $1 in taxes and give the rich man $100 in pay and to be fair only charge him $1 in taxes. That my German friend is the republican ideal of fair taxes, right?
German Gem -- Yes, it's true, the Bush tax cuts help the poor so they should remain. The rich need no help, they are rich, it's time to end their breaks. Remember the tax cuts were only suppose to be temporary.
BTW --The poor pay many other taxes. State, local, payroll, fees etc. In fact a greater percentage of their income goes toward taxes and fees unlike the wealthy.
Obama got the healthcare act passed, why not a jobs bill too?
Penalizing people for being successful is fair? Gee, that realy promotes ambition.
The poor pay a greater percent of taxes? DCA, please stop making things up.
The stimulus was a jobs acts. It just wasn't big enough due to the republicans.
That is why we need the AJA passed now.
If the billionaires have hundreds of millions to spend to convince the people to vote for tax cuts for the rich 1% republicans then they should easily have enough money for a small surcharge on their second million to get Americans working again.
That is if the republicans were interested in jobs for Americans.
Watch the republicans fight tax cuts for the 98% to protect the rich and their tax cuts.
Are tax cuts for the 1% more important than jobs or the American economy?
They are if you vote for a republican.
On this issue they did own congress. Tax rates are financial and are therefore subject reconciliation if necessary. The Democrats only needed 50 votes, plus the VP, in the Senate to pass new tax rates. Also, tax issues are not subject to filibuster as was shown when the ACA was passed using reconciliation and the original Bush tax rates.
If the ACA was passed using reconcilliation then when is the ending date for health care? All bills passed using reconcilliation have a end date like the bush tax cuts.
So anything passed by reconcilliation is only temporary, but you knew that, right?
You ignore my every argument and then try to pass off a couple lies as the truth. Typical republican.
The taxpayers have generally worked very hard for their money, and don't particularly care for the Government just taking it away from them to spend on Government salaries, offices, programs, and earmarks. This election will be decided, I think, by the numerical difference between the tax payers and the tax eaters.
add the 46 million food stamp recipients and we have a very close election coming
First the republicans crash our economy. People lost their jobs, their houses, their entire life's savings.
We bailed out the rich and their greed but the people who suffered the most you want to take the food out of their children's mouths because you are a tax payer.
This smaller government you have been conned into believing will somehow benefit you is only for the rich. For the rest of us the republicans and big, big government will be moving into your bedroom to monitor every pregnancy and your use of contraception.
Don't you even wonder why the millionaires are giving so much money to convince you to vote for the republicans that have promised them forever tax cuts?
Food stamps, let's talk more about that. Food stamps are used primarily for children. In fact, adults without children are often not eligible for food stamps. Military families are among those who use food stamps as well. And guess what, most are white too.
GermanGem (Dangerfield or who ever you are) you are at least consistent--consistently offensive.
GermanGem:
Well, Obama took office in the worst month of job creation since the depths of the Great Depression. In Dec of '08, the economy LOST about 750,000 jobs. In Jan of '09, the economy LOST 850,000 jobs. THESE ARE ONE MONTHS TOTALS. By February of 2010 (just one year later) the job creation figures were consistently POSITIVE. So, on a monthly basis the improvement from the beginning of the stimulus to the same point less than a year later was a ONE MILLION JOB PER MONTH IMPROVEMENT.
By the way, George W. Bush's AVERAGE job creation per month was 32,000. His administration created only three million jobs in eight years (96 months). That was the lowest figure since the Great Depression. Of course, those good ole W. tax cuts must have been responsible for about two or three thousand per month.
Bill Clinton's average job creation was over 239,000 jobs per month. Of course, Clinton is the all time jobs champion - much better than Reagan, for instance. Those modest tax increases that balanced the budget helped. Since February of 2010, after the ruinous effects of the W. mini-depression had been beaten back, the Obama administration has created something like 170,000 jobs per month.
One little historical tidbit, the CARTER administration created 10,000,000 jobs - or about 210,000 every month. You Republicans should know that the CARTER administration created more jobs per month than any Republican Administration ever did. That's right - even slightly more than Reagan. But hey, don't let statistics get in the way of your fairyland minds.
Carter said Romney's record was "stellar".
And enough of the blame game. Americans are tired of the excuses.
Wow BD - and Obama, faced with all that, still said "A year from now, I think, people are going to see that we are starting to make some progress. There's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one term proposition."
If he was truly oblivious to all you say was wrong, then he was totally incompetent. If he was aware of that supposed state of the economy, then he was lying.
Or, perhaps, the situation then just wasn't nearly as bad as the one he eventually created.
GG - Much more than doubled, in fact ... FY 2008 Deficit: $459 billion; FY 2012 Deficit: $1,327 billion.
Obama has been a disaster for the US.
I stand corrected Kannin:)
Kannin:
I have no idea what you are trying to say. There are still far too many millions of the unemployed. The W. mini-depression created about ten million new unemployed between January of 2008 and October of 2009. Can you say that Obama should be held accountable for job losses that began one year before he took office and began to turn to job gains ten months after he took office??? Is he happy with the status quo? No, he is not. There has been substantial progress since the millions of jobs lost in 2008 and 2009. Over 95% of the job losses occurred BEFORE November of 2009. So, the more than four million job gains since Feb. of 2010 are about 170,000 a month on average. The best we have ever done is to average about 250,000 jobs per month over a long period of time (more than two or three years). So, let's hope we can do better than ever before, because the recession of 2008 and 2009 was so huge that we lost millions of jobs that have to be made up. Of course, we should not go back to the strategies that brought us that catastrophe - unless you want the economy to shoot for a loss of a million jobs per month. With more of the failed right wing strategy, WE CAN DO IT! Oh, and by the way, Romney should quit lying about how the economy should be creating 300,000 jobs every month. The American economy has never done that for more than a few months at a time. And the Obama Administration has had a couple of months where job gains have been that large.
As for the deficits, 2009 was a Bush budgeted year. Fiscal 2009 began October 1, 2008 - five months before Obama took office. The CBO scored the 2009 budget as having a one trillion dollar budget before Obama took office. Everybody knew that the recession had burst the budget before Obama took office. Moreover, the surge in Afghanistan, the only thing the Republicans ever supported Obama on, did cost a few hundred billion. McCain and Romney want far more military spending. That is one of the reasons that the CBO scores Romney's tax and budget plans as having LARGER deficits than Obama.
Why did obama promise to cut the deficit in half but doubled it instead?
Our grand total today is just under $16,000,000,000,000.00
The kids in America have a pretty big tab to pay.
California should be a BIG RED FLAG that the liberal agenda is not working. But for those selfish folks who obama has enabled to sit on their butts and live off of the hard work of others, California, and America, don't matter and they will vote for obama.
Obama and the democrats just hope people are just stupid enough to believe that taxing the top earners to get 85 Billion a year will do anything.
I still will go back to let the debates begin, that's when we'll have are up or down vote on which direction needs to go.
Kannin,
Bush's last year deficit was 1.5 trillion dollars and it went on the books in 2009. The 2008 deficit you quote ( which I'm not disagreeing with ) was accrued in 2007. Bush was left a 5.8 trillion dollar debt after Clinton but a surplus as Clinton did not leave a deficit. Bush left office in 2009 with a national debt of 11 trillion dollars. Don't confuse yearly deficit with national debt. In addition to the deficit the national debt increases by its unpaid interest and unfunded expenditures.
....I'm with the GOP ...let the poor pay for the deficit...they can do it if we don't have them pay for the mandated insurance...they could use that money
....Im glad the GOP is doing everything they can to keep people out of work until after the election...if they can hang on and keep the economy really bad for a few more months, Obama will get kicked out of office
...Obama wants to give to much stuff to the poor ...yikes health insurance and healthcare...what is tthe guy thinking
There are corners of of America where Obama may gain some support. There is a huge difference between Romney and Obama. Bain Capital is a shell where Romney and his buddies became rich on the backs of others sweat and toil. Romney did NOT create wealth, he only Extracted Existing wealth, there is a HUGE difference. Romney isn't and hasn't connected with the middle class, and he does not understand anything but making more money. People do not know Romney still owns and receives dividends from Bain Capital, which owns Clear Channel and I Heart Radio, where Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh spew their diatribes daily. Romney's attempt to change the subject of Obama's economic policies are laughable as the public surely know that taxing and legislation come from the Congress. Jobs aren't created by cutting taxes on rich people. And they aren't lost by increasing taxes on rich people. Jobs are created by increased middle class demand. If we increase taxes on the wealthy (who are currently taxed at historically low rates) and take that revenue and build infrastructure and add teachers, firefighters, policemen, etc. which requires more workers, the middle class will grow, increasing demand. If the white working class voter this election cycle can't see the stark difference between a guy trying to get the country out of a hole that the GOP dug, and a guy who is the embodiment of everything that has gone wrong for the middle and working classes in the last 30 years, then this country by 2016 will be without hope.
Obama's tax the rich talking point get him about 85 billion a year. Obama's spending machine will eat through that in 8 days...
It does nothing.....just pitting one American against another to get elected...
Mr. Romney has no idea of how to create more jobs except for his friends in CHINA. He is reduced to putting up a sign, saying he is a jobs man. Mr. Romney, you are a disappointment.
.
Military Members, Veterans, Military retirees;
please note that Swiss Bank account Romney PROMOTED THE DRAFT during the Viet Nam War,
then skipped out to France for extraordinary length of time when church missionary tours were limited.
When Romney came home, he sided with his dad that the whole Viet Nam War was a scam and that he was against the war.
Promoting the draft, while Americans were dying, he skipped out, then says he wishes he could have participated. His whole life has been a lie.
Romney is a COWARD, Lying, Draft Dodger, who promoted someone else to die for him, that is his way of management.
Some may want anyone but Obama, but this guy ranks with Jane Fonda and should not be given anything or elected for anything.
For those who are not old enough to remember the military draft, it was a mandatory commitment for two years that was implemented during the Viet Nam War. If your number was called, you went and served like it or not. Young people may say, I wouldn't go and they can't make me, think again.
This is what Romney promoted as if he were a "responsible citizen", then he left his fellow citizens to serve and some died for us and him. I am ashamed of him as I am retired military member, and forget about representing our country Mr. Romney.
I am one of the Military members who are against Romney, this has nothing to do with politics.