Comments on: Dems: House GOP’s Stimulus Plan Would Actually Raise Taxes For Many Americans

By: Marco B

Marco B — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:25:19 +0000

Some of you liberals are so hateful and slanderous in regards to your perception of the rich. You take for granted the high standard of living we have because you’re jealous of the wealth the rich has, most who earned it through hard work. Perhaps you’d rather live in peaceful poverty like in Europe where unemployment flutters between 10 and 15% and where your opportunities are limited. Their standard of living is lower because their high taxes and big government regulation stifle their economy. The same thing happened with Japan in the 1990s where they tried for a decade to pass stimulus spending bills that did nothing to create wealth. The 2001 tax rebates failed to have any sort of economic impact because rebates don’t create incentive to work, save, and invest. With the 2003 tax cuts, the economy boomed so much that it hit its peak in August 2006 when the most Americans ever were employed. Bush failed in that he spent like a liberal and expanded the size of government tremendously. It is unfortunate the way it worked out but this stimulus bill isn’t the solution. Beyond being a spending bill for interest groups and government hybrid cars, etc, only three percent (30 billion) for the infrastructure and job creation part. Obama says 3 million jobs will be created, which, with the spending were doing, averages out to $275,000 per job, while the average family earns $42,000. Also, the provision to make sure that illegals didn’t get hired by construction workers was shut down by the dems, so now were using American tax money to give illegals jobs. Fun, I can’t wait to pay for that. Judging from how Hoover’s and FDR’s spending failed (fact: the depression ended the war, the New Deal extended it and watched unemployment continue to sky rocket to 25%), I just don’t feel that this is the way to rescue the economy.

It’s not just “tax cuts for the rich” as liberals continue to spout out. It’s just not that simple. The reductions help small businesses tremendously by allowing them to keep their head above water, higher more workers, and invest in their own future. Their the backbone of the American economy and raising taxes limits them tremendously. We also know that taxing the rich doesn’t work either. Clinton tried it, and it failed, and thus the luxury tax was repealed in 93′. Clinton got free trade right though, and this whole situation with the steel company for example, people are only looking at the immediate benefit, which is that the steel company does better. But you completely ignore the fact that they operate at a higher cost, so every other American company that uses their products now has their costs increase. And what do they do? They lay off workers. It’s easy to just want everyone to be just as rich as the other, and its nice to just want the poor to stop being poor, but people naturally function out of their own self interest, and so you have to use the system that may not be perfect, but works the best. Socialistic agendas have never worked and they never will.

PS: I’m socially a liberal and an agnostic, but I can’t give my vote to a Democrat who wants to use the economic crisis as a platform to pass all of their socialistic legislation.

By: Dave Pad

Dave Pad — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:03:07 +0000

Keep the ” inheritance tax ” , repigs insistence of ” death tax ” which I consider a ” privilege tax” that really benefits Bush Jr when Bush Sr and Barbara pass . Stop any $ 3500 exemptions for dependents living outside of USA. Simple & logical

By: Chris Kuehn

Chris Kuehn — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:54:07 +0000

I’ve got news for you, all your taxes are going up. When you pass a “stimulus” bill the size of this, it is my and your money they’re spending. Would you spend YOUR money on some of this dumb stuff? Are you willing for your children and grandchildren to pay it off for us? It would be totally irresponsible to do this to them!!!!!

By: Igor Z.

Igor Z. — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:46:12 +0000

Up for everyone BUT the rich, that is. Big surprise.

By: Measure for Measure

Measure for Measure — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:26:42 +0000

There’s precedent for the House proposal.

When George Bush proposed his hefty tax cuts during the 2000 elections, analysts thought that the numbers didn’t add up properly: the costs would be far higher than Bush let on.

After some give and take, the tax professionals discovered that Bush didn’t make commensurate AMT cuts, so that, “As a result, a substantial portion of the income tax cuts his plan seems to promise to taxpayers currently in the 28% through 36% tax brackets would be obviated by the AMT.”

http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm

Ignoring the AMT is a tried and true method of focusing the revenue reductions on the very top income groups.

By: Angharad

Angharad — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:09:28 +0000

Is President Obama’s original American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan online in a more detailed description of proposed expenditures? If so, please tell me the address for it. Is the House Stimulus Package online? The Senate’s?

By: KalPal

KalPal — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:08:17 +0000

Republicans don’t mind taxes so long as they are paid by the middle class and the poor. They don’t like our fiscal overlords being bothered by taxes. In their Feudal visions for society the rich will contribute the crumbs off their feasting tables and the middle class and the poor will pay for the feast.

By: R. Bruce Denney

R. Bruce Denney — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:55:21 +0000

To Don Norris 1/30 6:35pm- Not 27%, 2.9 per cent. I imagine that number up is based on the 3% that Social Security and medicare are said to cost to administer.
TJ at 1/31 9:08 has the greater truth of it. As in Grover Norquist’s famous comment about not wanting to outlaw government. He just wants to “shrink it to the size that (he) can drown it in a bathtub”. They do that by making Government BE the problem (Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Pregnant Chads, (hyping) Roe v. Wade, eColi, potholes, falling bridges and failing schools) hoping that we too will want to drown it. That leaves all the services to be done by their corporate buddies at a profit (not just 3 percent by any means), that WE will pay.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:33:51 +0000

You know the worst part? All these clowns — Bush, Greenspan, Thain — they all get to walk. You know, close the door and walk away. Meanwhile we pay for their “mistakes”. I say hang them all.

By: TJ

TJ — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:08:46 +0000

One little gambit we lose sight of in the discussion of reducing taxes goes beyond the greed of the wealthy and the corporations. Part of the neo-con “big picture” is to bankrupt government. Yes, they are insatiable in their personal greed, but they also know that the reduction in revenues makes it easier to reduce regulatory oversight (how’s that peanut butter?) and social programs (condoms anyone?). As Thom Hartmann points out, they want corporations to be able to “externalize” many of their costs and liabilities and then disable WE THE PEOPLE from being able to recover those costs. And thank you, EZRider, for putting WE THE PEOPLE back into the dialog. Lest we forget, that’s who government is supposed to serve.

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:37:20 +0000

hey all, thanks for this great thread. I wanted to remind you of the homepage of this blog:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com

I’m hoping you’ll all stick around and comment endlessly. I’m hoping to turn this site into the preeminent discussion site about the new Democratic order in D.C.

By: Danp

Danp — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:09:22 +0000

jesterband (11:51) – I buy your logic, but I don’t think you can honestly call that an increase. I suspect that the Dem argument is more along the lines that the AMT temporary fix is due to expire at some point, and then, many people who benefit under the Republican proposal will experience an increase. I honestly don’t know whether the Dem proposal has some built in immunity from that. But then, I get kind of ticked off by the argument that the AMT prevents people from using too many deductions. The AMT already has built in exceptions. For example, you can deduct mortgage interest on your home to lower even the AMT due. You just can’t avoid taxes entirely by giving all your income to charities.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:57:12 +0000

Here’s what really has me scratching my head. The Republicans have this “great” package and wants the President to go with it. Well then why did they wait until the day of the vote to roll it out? They knew this was coming since November 4th, so why not share anything until the end of January? It’s their typical attempts of slight of hand. They actually have nothing.

By: E Z Rider

E Z Rider — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:12:58 +0000

Raise taxes, lower taxes the average American does not really care which. All we want to see is the economy improve, people going back to work, foreign tax shelters siece, loss of jobs to foreign contries stop.

We are tired of seeing out retirement benifits dwindle, while the elected officials have guaranteed retirement incomes. We are tired of not being able to take our families out to eat occasionally while the DC crew eat out daily, we are tired of wondering how we are going to pay our car note while they ride around in a car paid for by us.

Nope, these people do not have a clue as to how to solve this poblem or do not care.

Example, the bank bailouts, then the banks using the money to buy Jets, give millions of dollars of bonuses, remodling offices and only God knows what else.

Until WE THE PEOPLE make it clear to these dirt bags what we want it will continue.

What makes ANYONE think that anything is going to change until WE THE PEOPLE tell them what we want.

Does anyone in America really realize what a tax increase or decrease to a person in the 55 M and lower income range would do to help or hurt them.

ABSOLUTLY NOTHING.

Lets tell congress and senate to get off this bickering and solve the f*****g problem.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:12:56 +0000

The GOP has no credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility. ZERO. Can you say Halliburton and Blackwell? Give me a break. These clowns think we will forget the damage they have wrought upon our international, domestic and economic credibility. They ought to be begging for forgiveness instead of waxing rhapsodically and trying to be sanctimonous.