DISQUS

davidkc · 1 year ago

Wow, this really sucks. He's not even in office, and Obama is already reneging on one of his key promises from the campaign: to increase taxes on the wealth and make them pay their fair share. I guess he doesn't care so much about the middle class after all.

Jake In Music City · 1 year ago

While I know that Obama will be far better for this country than four more years of the same, I stopped believing anything he told us after his FISA vote. And yes I donated and gave money and phone banked and canvassed, because I know that Obama will be far, far better for this country than McCain/Palin, but believe Obama's campaign promises, not so much.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago

I am thinking (or hoping) he will devote the first four years to getting re-elected for a second term more to the liking of the Progressive roots. Smart pols have done this (i.e. Ann Richards). Let the stupid corporate media convince themselves he's "really" a moderate Republican with a tan governing a center-right nation. He's certainly not that. And 46% of the electorate are still convinced he's a radical secret Muslim who will destroy American civilization by taking money from white people and giving it to blacks. He's gonna "triangulate" now to get more of a persuasive mandate in 2012.

Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas · 1 year ago

Fine. Play the K street game. Feed the rich and fuck the rest of us. A buddy of ours works at Exxon HQ near Dallas. He told me that the top fifty execs pay ZERO income tax. They have tax lawyers who find every single possible way to avoid paying a goddam cent. Meanwhile, me the poor teacher, is out three grand a year which I really could use to, like, say, pay bills? Or maybe visit my kid? Or say pay off some medical stuff? Oh right I'm spoiled with that kind of thinking. I hope to god Obama is further left than this is telling us.

shell · 1 year ago

What do you mean "gets back on its feet"? How is the US supposed to do that when things stay the same? I am in the middle as far as taxes go -- my taxes won't be raised or lowered by any significant number -- either way. But I do worry about my children. They have jobs now, but I warn them not to change jobs, even though they might want to. And they see their income's worth going down, down, down.

Tax increases for the rich won't make a bit of difference to them -- except possibly get them over some of their mental illness. And yes, I DO see it as a mental illness -- having enough money for you -- and your extended family -- to do anything you want -- and still needing more money. That is a mental illness. As mentally ill as a drug addiction. "Ah! " you say, "But that doesn't hurt anyone else, like the crack addict who steals!" Are you F-ing kidding me?

paulbe · 1 year ago

Yep, more of that change you can believe in. Americas filthy rich must really need that help. I'm sure the rest of you won't mind chipping in more tax money to help out. It'll get easier after that first ten trillion. I'm curious to know where the limits on your support for Obama lie, John. I'll be watching this space.

Professor_Farnsworth · 1 year ago

I'm curious to know where the limits on your support for Obama lie, John. I'll be watching this space.
------------

well, it's obvious your support didn't extend far.

ObamaLover · 1 year ago

I totally disagree with that. The rich will just put the money in their bank account. We need the government to spend it.

ObamaLover · 1 year ago

so it's not even a net neutral. It's a net negative. This is awful. Come on John. My name is ObamaLover and even I see this as being ridiculous.

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

LOL.

Maybe you should change that to "KrugmanLover."

Nylund · 1 year ago

If the rich were to put it into a bank account, this may not be a bad thing since banks desperately need capital and new deposits in order to continue lending. Or, if the rich used it to buy stocks, it may slow down the crashing stock market, which may help many people watching their 401k disappear (but I doubt they could make too much of a dent here). Or, if the flight to safety continues, they may just buy government bonds, and with interest rates so cheap, this basically means that government would just be borrowing that money back at an almost interest free rate. Even if the rich spent it all, this would be money paid into the US economy buying goods when so many companies are seeing flagging sales. Better the rich prop consumption up than the poor that can't afford to be spending like crazy anymore. Its not as if this money will be stuffed into mattresses were it does the economy no good. It'll help wherever it ends up. My only concern would that it would be funneled overseas, but since the whole world is in bad shape, I think this is less of a concern and would be offset by the amount of money they would stay in the US from taxes not being raised on wealthy investors who have their money here.

Right now, the poor and middle class need as much money pumped into the economy as possible. I have no problem with it being the money of the rich. They are not my concern.

Ultimately, this comes down to one fact for me. If the option is to choose between tax relief for the rich or a fiscal package, I choose the fiscal package and I say tax the rich. But if the fiscal stimulus package is independent of tax receipts then delay the tax cuts and get that money back into the system as well. The more money and economic activity, the better. Of course, if they are independent, that means that the tax raise delay would worsen our debt and deficit, but this is of minor concern at the moment. Saving the economy is the first priority, and with interest rates so low, its actually an ideal time for the US government to be borrowing money.

Once the economy is righted, then we can worry about income distribution and balanced budgets, but not until then. Of course, we must take that seriously for those are real problems we will need to address and we can't slip back into irresponsibility when the bad times pass. We will all have to work hard to make sure the rich do eventually pay their share and to get the government to spend responsibly, but now is not the time. That will be a hard fight, but lets save the energy for that fight when the time is right.

I think its sad that in order to help ourselves we have have to also give to those that don't deserve it, but I think the reality of the situation is that its the best possible course of action and a necessary evil at this critical juncture.

(Note: I make very little money, so this has nothing to do with my personal tax rate. This is just me speaking as a grad student in economics, one who is very concerned and interested in income inequality mind you).

Older_Wiser · 1 year ago

Well, I can see clearly now...the rest of us suffer while the rich get, well, richer or at least don't go down in flames like the rest of us.

Look at his "economic team"--after all is said and done, corporatists to the bone. They said Clinton started off badly--the same can be said of Obama.

You can bet there are going to be a lot of pissed off people out here when it sinks in, and the layoffs and foreclosures continue.

HereinDC · 1 year ago

More and more the Republicans have less to bitch about.
Smart move Mr. Obama.

Helen Rainier · 1 year ago

I'm confused by this article. I thought the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were set to expire soon. Does this mean the tax cuts will be allowed to expire and the tax cuts will revert back to previous levels, but no raised above and beyond that?

Maybe I'm completely misreading this or am totally confused by my understanding of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

As I read it.

They will expire at the planned time, versus Obama moving the expiration date up.

naschkatzehussein · 1 year ago

One of the few times I disagree with you, John, and I hope 'likely' doesn't materialize. You are talking trickle down economics again, and the rich are not going to invest that money into the country. They are going to pocket it.

elrod · 1 year ago

I don't agree, John. The political environment may not be right to raise taxes in a couple years. Obama told everyone he was planning to raise taxes on the rich, and he ought to follow through with it now. Plus, if he starts backing away from his campaign pledges people will start to have doubts about his sincerity, and his base of support will begin to erode. I'm still happy that we got Obama elected, but look at developments so far since Nov. 4-- every single one of his decisions and/or appointments have been away from the progressive agenda and leaning right.

dula · 1 year ago

If Obama says raising the taxes on the rich will damage the economy, doesn't that play directly into the Republican mantra of "cutting taxes increases revenue" bullshit that allowed for the dismantling of the Middle Class and the destruction of our economy? Oh but I guess if O says it it must be for the best because he is smarter than us and ran a good campaign and is a good man and on and on and on..

Mainer007 · 1 year ago

John is sure sounding like a republican again in contorting himself to agree with Obama.

John is saying trickle down works -- that it would hurt the economy to make the rich pay more taxes.

Give me a break!

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

Agree.

It's a 3 percent increase on money over 250k.

I think the rich can afford that.

Professor_Farnsworth · 1 year ago

lmao, people who don't agree with you are now republican?!

give me a break!

cab02149 · 1 year ago

At age 65, I have been through my share of recessions. This is no recession.

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

I don't buy this.

If all that money was being used for "capital formation," we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now.

The rich are just keeping their money on the sidelines, same as anybody else.

Letting Bush's tax cuts for the rich expire will do no harm and may do a lot of good as the government puts that money to productive use in rebuilding our infrastructure.

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

Oh, sorry, I should have read more closely before I commented.

So, he's still going to let Bush's tax breaks for the rich expire, he's just not going to move up the expiration date.

I guess I can live with that, though I think this proves once and for all that tax breaks don't lead to a strong economy and, in fact, may lead to the opposite.

ao · 1 year ago

When you are in a recession you can't raise taxes, cut spending or try to balance the budget because it would be too painful.

When you are coming out of a recession you can't raise taxes, cut spending or try to balance the budget because you may fall back into the recession.

When there are signs that you may be headed to a recession you can't raise taxes, cut spending or try to balance the budget because you may cause a recession.

When everything is booming it is time give the taxpayers some relief and live a little, so you cut taxes, spend even more and mantain an unbalanced budget.

It is never the right time to act responsibly so a depression is inevitable. Obama is just another politician. Can I have my vote back?

Bubbles · 1 year ago

You can tax the hell out of the rich and the economy will never feel any pain.

You can then use that revenue to create demand and the economy will come to life.

This all started out because wealth had become too concentrated.

This is not rocket science. Obama's not an idiot. I figure anything he says now is to keep Bush from doing anything drastic. After January 20th, then we'll see where he stands.

Professor_Farnsworth · 1 year ago

*gasp* don't be so logical!

we are supposed to knee jerk and call everyone republican.

Older_Wiser · 1 year ago

If the middle class is going to have to suffer through layoffs and foreclosures, what about those who have no jobs, no house, no hope at all? The truly poor?

What is going to happen to pensions, 401ks, etc.? What is going to happen to city, county and state govts which are slowly losing revenue because of foreclosures, plant and business closings, etc. and no way to make up the revenue?

The "infrastructure program" is not supposed to start until 2011, either; that is supposed to provide jobs. Where will jobs come from until then? How much will the debt and deficit increase during those 2 years?

So what does the majority of the country do to survive in 2009 and 2010?

unrepentant_expat · 1 year ago

I really don't mind that taxpayer money goes to support the rich,,, as long as they are currently serving time in a penal institution.

ronfromnh · 1 year ago

the idea that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy is a deliberate falsehood propogated by the right wing. certainly, raising taxes on people to the point that it reduces their ability to spend their disposable income is harmful to the economy, but but taking money from the people who aren't going to spend it and giving it to people who will spend it is not only not harmful to the economy it is one of the sure ways to grow the economy. if i know that, certainly obama knows it and if he does otherwise it is a sign to me that he is not going to be strong enough to solve our financial problems.

Mimikatz · 1 year ago

They had better make an exception for the estate tax. The exempt amount goes to $3.5 million next year but then it vanishes in 2010. But in 2011 it reverts to 1999 levels. Congress should just freeze it at this year's level ($2 million) or at worst next year's level. But they should do it next year so there is some certainty. The rest of the tax cuts could expire in 2011, but I'd like to see a millionaire's tax go into effect next year. (3-5% surtax on incomes over 1 million--these people aren't hurting. Get back some of that CEO and investment banker compensation.

ElaineinIN · 1 year ago

I agree -- see my comment above on the estate tax. There is part of me that thinks he is doing this because then democrats could argue that they didn't raise taxes, they just let the terms expire under the provisions as passed under Bush. I dunno, just a though.

But allowing that to happen in the estate tax context would be just a disaster.

ronfromnh · 1 year ago

while i'm on the subject, i am a democrat for just that reason. both parties redistribute the wealth, the difference between them is that democrats redistribute it from the rich to the poor while republicans redistribute it from the poor to the rich. any society that takes money away from people who will spend it and give it to people who won't spend it is doomed to failure.

unrepentant_expat · 1 year ago

" I'd rather see Obama playing it safe and postponing the tax increase on the rich until the economy gets back on its feet."

That should pretty much teach them not to do it again.

Dudical · 1 year ago

He may be abstaining from raising taxes on the top brackets now to avoid as much of possible doing anything that the media, on cue from the right wing, may claim (however baselessly) as worsening the recession. So if he just waits passively for the tax cuts to expire, he can't be accused of raising taxes in the recession and causing worse problems. In truth, raising taxes on the rich, as long as they are not to extreme levels (which the plan nowhere near calls for), will not cause more problems but help the economy (as another poster said, all the rich do with the extra money saved by paying less taxes basically is pad their bank accounts). I suspect he may end up raising taxes for the top in 2010, rather than waiting the full two years, but only if we show clear signs of being past the crisis situation at that point.

gymnjim · 1 year ago

way to get sucked in by neoliberal economics.

Taxes are rarely money that is taken out of the economy. Because governments rarely sit on cash holdings. In fact the most likely to be taking money out of the economy are the very people that these taxes would affect.

dad · 1 year ago

why not?

the theory has been trickling down since the early eighties.

how can continuing the failed practice that got us here, change anything.

why?

son · 1 year ago

Take a look at the numbers. Tax revenues went up when the taxes rates were lowered. Sombody real smart once said that if that happens you didn't lower the rates low enough. If its revenue you want, keep the rates low or lower. If its a political sound bite that you want, well then, tax the rich!

dula · 1 year ago

Oh really, then why did every Republican "trickle down" Administration since Reagan all end up with huge deficits? The Laffer Curve is bullshit and you're up to your elbows in it.

Older_Wiser · 1 year ago

Wait a minute, wait a minute! The tax cuts don't totally expire until--ta da--2011.

David Axelrod says "there will be considerations."

dad · 1 year ago

hmmm

Older_Wiser · 1 year ago

The rightwing blogs are having a field day with this..."Obama is Republican Lite," liberals...

ElaineinIN · 1 year ago

However, I hope he doesn't include the estate tax in this.

The exemption from the estate tax was gradually rising until the end of 2009. In 2010 it was repealed. In 2011, the estate tax came back. In this context, he should freeze it at 2009 levels, as the ridiculousness that will ensure with the one year of repeal cannot be adequate described in this paragraph.

Gary SF · 1 year ago

People who make over $250k need those tax cuts to remain in place to help them purchase the remaining 10% of total assets that still are in the hands of those of us who make up the lower 95% of the economy. How else are they going to be able to snap up all of those foreclosed houses for pennies on the dollar?

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

Besides, the new Mercedes models are coming out soon.

stoic · 1 year ago

Well, if all fairness this is just incomprehensible. No, no, no. If you really want to get money into the economy you need to take it back from the wealthy NOW and put it where it will do more good and that is with the working and middle classes. It is simply more efficiently distributed that way than through the top 5%-ers. Kill the tax cuts on the wealthy and cut or forgo taxes on those making less than 60-80K. In fact, having a tax "holiday" lasting a year for those people will really boost the economy and just about kill the Republican's chant of "tax and spend" Democrats.

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

If only Obama would institute the Hillary/McCain "gas tax holiday."

Then we'd be in good shape.

(snark)

fair? · 1 year ago

as an Obama supporter in nearly every regard save tax policy, i REALLY would like you to make a convincing argument about your use of the word "fair"

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

I think he meant "push back" on the cuts themselves by "pushing up" the expiration date.

At least that's how I read it.

ruttle · 1 year ago

I have to add my two cents as well. I think this is a bad idea. As others have stated, and far more effectively than I will, I think the middle class and the poor are the folks who really need the money. I have no problem taking from the rich in terms of taxes. This seems to me like Obama (and you as well John) are buying into the trickle down concept. I don't often find myself disagreeing with you, but in this case I respectfully find myself doing so.

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

Man, the Repubs really have us coming and going.

If times are good, they say we need tax cuts.

If times are bad, they say we need tax cuts.

Why, those tax cuts will just cure anything.

Viceroy · 1 year ago

Actually, after the economy took a trillion dollar hit after 9-11, the Bush tax cuts did quite well in restoring the economic health of the nation. Eventually, it is going to be clear that all that stuff about "change" is just noise. There is not going to be significant change. The rich will stay rich, the elites will continue to rule, and the majority of posters on this blog will remain ignorant chicken-shit ego junkies, who will eventually do their time before their television eating a frozen dinner and ranting about "injustice." Y'all need to get it, what you think matters not at all to either the Repubicans and Democrats, both of which are perfectly willing to exploit you and your votes for their own selfish ends. You haven't won a thing. Wake up.

Chris From Maine · 1 year ago

I am not a big fan of the growing list of "we will wait and do these things later" stuff like Dont ask Dont tell, the Iraq withdrawal, now the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.. etc..

We voted for change now, not change a couple of years from now.

Professor_Farnsworth · 1 year ago

you are expecting things to change immediately. that is exactly what obama warned against and people aren't listening. what is going with the economy is NOT A QUICK FIX.

RIPWAMU · 1 year ago

We need a larger tax base now. If things continue down this path we are headed, there won't be a middle class and our tax base will wither.

Terry Brooks · 1 year ago

While the top !% of the population are collecting 22% of the income, the economy cannot recover. The investment in infrastructure to create jobs will cost money, and the slowing economy will reduce revenues. There will also have to be increased support for state and local governments (school systems) which will increase the deficit. The super-rich will not be hurt by paying more taxes. A substantial increase in taxes on income and capital gains for those that make more that $500,000 is essential, and it should increase to amounts not seen since before Reagan (70% on top incomes).

JulieP · 1 year ago

John Aravosis use to work for Uncle Ted Stevens (R-AK).

It seemed for awhile like John had disowned his past R affiliation.

But not so much anymore?

They say Clinton was the best Republican prez we've had in a long time.

If Obama is planning on being the best Republican prez since Clinton - then wuz lied to.

Sure ain't the 'change' I worked my tail off for.

EarthquakeWeather · 1 year ago

I thought we all agreed trickle-down economics didn't work. WTF is this?

NMRon · 1 year ago

Sorry, it's not like any of this money is 'in' the economy. The super rich do not take their tax savings and run out and hire a bunch of new people or invest it in new public infrastructure or even invest it in the market right now. The buy the kids or the missus a multi-million birthday party or two or buy up someone's foreclosed property or buy Euros and store them in the Caymans. Any idea that the super rich paying their share of taxes will further hurt the economy is ludicrous neocon propaganda.

Mia · 1 year ago

Only thing I can say about that is this: if not in 2009, then in 2011 it won't be done either because Dems will not want to increase anyone's taxes, even the top 5%, going into an election year.

I agree that this year is probably not the time to raise anyone's taxes, but I'm equally realistic about the chances of anyone's taxes being increased as the next election cycle starts up either. ;-)

Bubbles · 1 year ago

You can soak the rich and the economy won't feel it at all.

The fact is they rich have too much percentage of society's resources and that's the very root cause of the melt down.

So increase taxes on the wealth to move some of that supply side money over to the demand side.

If Obama doesn't do that, the recession will drag on for a decade or more. Consider Mexico is basically a recession that never ends.

Bubbles · 1 year ago

By the way - not soaking the rich is not playing it safe.

It's time to soak them.

They have no need to worry - in Keynesian economics every body gets richer.

Indigo · 1 year ago

A centrist is a centrist is a centrist.

Joe Watts · 1 year ago

We should immediately rescind those tax cuts. It doesn't take money out of the economy---it just shifts it---and or reduces the sure fire eventual inflation we will have as a result of inserting so much more money into the economy to get it started again.

We should take that money and fund prosecution of all the corporate bastards that have screwed us all over.

The CEOs of Bank of America, Citicorp, AIG, Lehman Brothers, etc---should all be in jail and their assets should be confiscated just like we do with drug dealers. Oh, and don't forget the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and the CEO of the USA.

eclecticbrotha · 1 year ago

So, in other words Obama's gonna run up even bigger deficits rather than piss off the rich. Meanwhile, the middle class can kiss their tax cut goodbye since that was contingent on raising the tax on the richest 5%. If this is true its a stupid idea. If you give that tax cut to 95% of working Americans you stand a greater chance of seeing it pumped back into the economy. Meanwhile, the rich have been riding a tax break for 8 years now and its obvious its not helping the economy one bit.

Freddie · 1 year ago

Obama's problem here is his terror of the right-dominated MSM. It's not about what's economically best for the country. History shows that tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy, despite the din of the aristocracy-owned MSM mantra to the contrary. So go after MSM and start fixing that problem. A little muscle there would go a long way.

Eric · 1 year ago

Do we really have such an unconditional hard-on for Obama that we can't even criticize him when he bends over for the rich? I guess if I criticize him, I'm a racist.

Eric · 1 year ago

I'd like to add this as a plea to my left-leaning friends: please keep your razor sharp cynical critical thinking through the next administration. No politician is above criticism. These blogs got me through the Bush years, and I don't want them to look the other way when Obama misbehaves just because he's on a better team.

Don't believe in myths · 1 year ago

"I'd rather see Obama playing it safe and postponing the tax increase on the rich until the economy gets back on its feet."

A typically myopic numbnuts comment.

Our economy is a fraud. It has no feet.
Once the dollar collapses and the US finally drowns in its ocean of debt, there will be no more taxes left to collect, so the whole boondoggle will be irrelevant.