So what's different now?

[Triton]

Yesterday the obama proposed that we extend the "Bush tax cuts" for everyone... except those filthy stinking rich people that have too much money. The questions I have are these:

1) What's different now then back in December of 2010? You know that point in time when the obama renewed the "Bush tax cuts" (can we call them the Obama tax cuts now?) and told us that if he didn't it would be a "blow to the economy." So come on liberals, tell us what is different now? Is our economy so robust now that we can take a "blow to the economy?"

2) As a follow on question I have to ask, what happened to all those "tax cuts for the rich?" That's what liberals told us the "Bush tax cuts" were. All those filthy rich people were the ones that were getting the tax cuts. If that's true, then what are these tax cuts that the obama is proposing to extend?

3) A final question liberals. Just how is taxing the wealthy more going to fix the economy? How will it create jobs?

The answers of course are simple.

1) Nothing has change economically since back in 2010, but it's an election year so things have change politically. The obama desperately needs some sort of wedge issue to gin up his minions and he thinks that envy and class warfare will get it done. He's hoping so anyway, after the dismal failures of the "war on women" and "I'm for homosexual marriage" didn't do the trick.

2) The "Bush tax cuts" were really for everyone.

3) It won't.

[powernoodle]

So what's different now?

Whats different then and now about leftists' intellectual dishonesty? Nothing.

Back then, leftists characterized it as Bush's tax cut for the wealthy. Now, its Obama's middle class tax cut. Same taxes, same middle class people. But leftists willingness to lie about them for political purposes is nothing new. Just as they called General David Patraeus a scoundrel and "General Betray Us" when Bush was his Commander in Chief, and now he is a great patriot under the current President. HillaryCare was a horrible thing according to Senator Obama, and the only remedy to a supposed national crisis after he was elected. Marriage is between one man and one woman when Obama is running for office, and now a lamp can marry a golden retriever.

More lies, more spin, and more obfuscation. Its the same thing now with the terrible Bush tax cut and the terrific Obama tax cut. Same tax cut, just characterized differently by leftists depending on the lie of the day.

One more reason to flush the toilet in November, spray the Lysol and start over.

[ttoney83]

The difference now is that the current president recognizes that he needs a tax cut on SOMEbody to cover the fact that his health care mandate has been identified as a tax....... Same ole, same ole BULLshizzle.....

[Danbo]

Just a political ploy to attempt to gain votes.

[Preacher Man]

The difference is that the current administration needs funds to cover its expense obligations and want to target the sector of the population that can actually pay (or as some would say, can afford to pay) more taxes. Ideology plays a part, but I don't think it is nefarious or dishonest. It's just the intrinsic problem of wanting to expand government, and with it the expense created by new programs and departments.

[timcsaw]

The difference now is that the current president recognizes that he needs a tax cut on SOMEbody to cover the fact that his health care mandate has been identified as a tax....... Same ole, same ole BULLshizzle.....

DITTO. For those who have been paying attention, who realise that the Obamacare TAX will impact the middle class more than any other group, this is Obama 's attempt to appease them.

[Triton]

The difference is that the current administration needs funds to cover its expense obligations and want to target the sector of the population that can actually pay (or as some would say, can afford to pay) more taxes. Ideology plays a part, but I don't think it is nefarious or dishonest. It's just the intrinsic problem of wanting to expand government, and with it the expense created by new programs and departments.

If that's the case then the regime is completely imcompetent because anyone with a calculator can fairly quickly determine that this tax proposal will fund the government at its current spending rate for about eight days.

Since I think that the regime has calculators and people that know how to use them, I am convinced that this has absolutely nothing to do with revenue, and it is indeed nefarious AND dishonest.

Again, I ask the question, what has changed economically that now justifies raising taxes?

[Preacher Man]

If that's the case then the regime is completely imcompetent because anyone with a calculator can fairly quickly determine that this tax proposal will fund the government at its current spending rate for about eight days.

Since I think that the regime has calculators and people that know how to use them, I am convinced that this has absolutely nothing to do with revenue, and it is indeed nefarious AND dishonest.

We see it differently, but time will tell the tale. One thing I think we agree on is that this tax move has at least a political dimension to it.

[ttoney83]

If that's the case then the regime is completely imcompetent because anyone with a calculator can fairly quickly determine that this tax proposal will fund the government at its current spending rate for about eight days.

Since I think that the regime has calculators and people that know how to use them, I am convinced that this has absolutely nothing to do with revenue, and it is indeed nefarious AND dishonest.

True!

[ron_m80]

So how many people here believe in the theory of trickle down economics?

The rich are given a different tax rate than common folks, supposed due to the fact that their wealth will disseminate down to the population as they thrive in America. Otherwise why would they be taxed differently than everyone else?

There is one thing Rich people all do well, and generally all of them have in common, and that is keep their money. Don't muddle the waters with political hot air from any source. The tax rate is not even and it has not been for many many years. In a system based on fairness and free market, why are the rich favored? I don't want their money, I want my money to stop being some form of social security for their wealth. If they are given a tax break for conducting business exclusively in the USA fine, but look at how much of the labor, and major industry component of most every given industry is moved overseas, now where is the American subsidized tax break trickling down to? What about the trade agreements that undercut American industries, sending superior product overseas for sale, and inferior products being imported for consumption by Americans? But not only are the business's taxed differently, their personal wealth is also taxed differently. They are not Daddy WarBucks, if the business goes under they won't commit suicide, they will keep their fortune. Tell me how that is not the ultimate form of welfare system? Is that not anything more than a ruling elite, living prosperously on the backs of the American tax-payers that the system was made for? Or is that the farce the smoke and mirrors conceal? The American nation exists purely because the rich aristocratic colonial land owners that didn't want to pay their taxes anymore, so they gave a document to the common folks promising one thing, and then slowly over time taking every word of it back.

I wish people would really shake up the foundation of this country by voting in Ron Paul. Voting for Romney or Obama is to guarantee a return to the same policies that have gotten us here where we are now. Only one candidate has said he would do different. Everything else is a game with numbers driven into minds through ideology.

[quietmike]

So how many people here believe in the theory of trickle down economics?

I do.

The rich are given a different tax rate than common folks, supposed due to the fact that their wealth will disseminate down to the population as they thrive in America. Otherwise why would they be taxed differently than everyone else? There is one thing Rich people all do well, and generally all of them have in common, and that is keep their money. Don't muddle the waters with political hot air from any source. The tax rate is not even and it has not been for many many years.

Too bad that rate is higher.

In a system based on fairness and free market, why are the rich favored?

A "progressive" tax does not favor the rich.

I don't want their money, I want my money to stop being some form of social security for their wealth. If they are given a tax break for conducting business exclusively in the USA fine, but look at how much of the labor, and major industry component of most every given industry is moved overseas, now where is the American subsidized tax break trickling down to? What about the trade agreements that undercut American industries, sending superior product overseas for sale, and inferior products being imported for consumption by Americans? But not only are the business's taxed differently, their personal wealth is also taxed differently. They are not Daddy WarBucks, if the business goes under they won't commit suicide, they will keep their fortune. Tell me how that is not the ultimate form of welfare system? Is that not anything more than a ruling elite, living prosperously on the backs of the American tax-payers that the system was made for? Or is that the farce the smoke and mirrors conceal? The American nation exists purely because the rich arristocratic colonial land owners that didn't want to pay their taxes anymore, so they gave a document to the common folks promising one thing, and then slowly over time taking every word of it back.

A flat rate for everyone, with no exemptions or deductions is fair to everyone.

I wish people would really shake up the foundation of this coutry by voting in Ron Paul. Voting for Romney or Obama is to gurantee a return to the same policies that have gotten us here where we are now. Only one candidate has said he would do different. Everything else is a game with numbers driven into minds through ideology.

Agreed.

[ron_m80]

I do.

If it's not too far off topic, how does it work?

[quietmike]

If it's not too far off topic, how does it work?

The rich hire people and pay them wages. Those people buy things produced buy others, which ensures those jobs. It works exactly the same as the welfare state, except it is a free choice instead of by force of government.

[Triton]

We see it differently, but time will tell the tale. One thing I think we agree on is that this tax move has at least a political dimension to it.

We do see it differently and what tale will time tell? It's a verifiable fact that the government can't collect enough money from the people it is proposing to tax at higher rates to fix anything. Run the numbers yourself if you don't believe me. So again I have to ask what is the economic reason for doing this and how can it be justified now when it could not be justifid before? I would submit that there is NOT an economic reason. This means that the reasoning must run to something else. If it runs to something else then that means that the obama is lying to us and I can't imagine he is lying to us for anything other than a nefarious reason can you?

[Triton]

The rich hire people and pay them wages. Those people buy things produced buy others, which ensures those jobs. It works exactly the same as the welfare state, except it is a free choice instead of by force of government.

Seconded both in your belief in capitalism (that would be trickle down economics) and how it works. I'd say that we have definitive proof from all over the world that command economies (North Korea / Soviet Union) and creeping socialism (France / Spain / Portugal / Greece) are failures why would we wish to emulate either system?

[ron_m80]

Yes, some manner of a money source for the ball to get rolling and stay in motion is necessary for society. No doubt. But the part that I see that is flawed with trickle down economics is that the trickle is supposed to belong to you somehow. And it does not. So that is the flaw, no one is guaranteed a trickle, so as we create more trade agreements, and export our jobs, and industries, no matter how dirty the EPA says they are, we lose our trickle. I believe the time has come to re-evaluate where we are trickling, and to what end it does. Sucessful trickle down economics goes against everything my life has shown me to be true about people and their money.

You no longer have a choice between being a modest butcher at a mom and pop grocery store and going to college, if you want to live well. Not so long ago, and less than a generation past, that was quite possible to do and still be a home owner with a family of kids. I keep laughing as I watch the Disney channel over my sons shoulder in the afternoon, an blue collar self-employed exterminator has a house filled with three teenage kids, a new born, a stay at home mom, a house that would cost more than 3 million in California with a ristine lawn and seemingly everything the quiticential American family would want.

You no longer have the option to go forge your way into the wilderness with a wagon and wife, claim a plot of land build all that you need and thrive. You have to earn a place in a system that is stacked against you, it favors the power that greases the economy. That stands in contrast to our rights, and the founding documents of the country.

That stark difference is not something I can overlook when discussing economics, and government, or politics, and foreign affairs. You are disgracing every man and woman that every busted their back and sweat blood for this country if you only think of an issue one at a time, and political parties by platform and dogma only.

We the people, support and defend the ruling class of Americans while foolishly believing that they generally have any of our interests at heart. That is the truth expertly veiled behind our fever to voice concern over the topic of the day, our voice is our right, but what does it weigh? How can everyone ignore the changes in their families since the end of WWII?

[quietmike]

Yes, some manner of a money source for the ball to get rolling and stay in motion is necessary for society. No doubt. But the part that I see that is flawed with trickle down economics is that the trickle is supposed to belong to you somehow. And it does not. So that is the flaw, no one is guaranteed a trickle, so as we create more trade agreements, and export our jobs, and industries, no matter how dirty the EPA says they are, we lose our trickle. I believe the time has come to re-evaluate where we are trickling, and to what end it does. Sucessful trickle down economics goes against everything my life has shown me to be true about people and their money.

So you've never had a job where the boss was wealthy? Did you buy goods with your wages? Did another person produce those goods?

We the people, support and defend the ruling class of Americans while foolishly believing that they generally have any of our interests at heart. That is the truth expertly veiled behind our fever to voice concern over the topic of the day, our voice is our right, but what does it weigh? How can everyone ignore the changes in their families since the end of WWII?

It is not support of a ruling class. It is defense of property rights which translates into opposition to slavery.

The main reason things have changed since WWII is government mission creep. Originally government was intended to prevent one person from defrauding or causing actual harm to another. Now government is expected to supply every need and a growing list of wants. But to do that, those things must first be confiscated from another.

If human greed is the fault to be found with free trade, how is that solved by electing those same flawed humans to a government position where they have the option to use legal force to advance their greed?

[jdm61]

The BIG difference is that less than a year ago, Obama wanted to bring back the old Clinton surcharge rate of 39%+ on AGI of over $250,000, but make the REST of the reduced Bush tax rates PERMANENT. NOW, he wants to bring back the top rate for 2013...........and let the rest of the rates creep back up to 1999 levels in 2014. Quite a difference, no? Sounds like he could do the same thing just by sitting back and letting ALL of the cuts lapse at the end of this year.......but, of course, he is counting that people won't notice that THEIR tax rate will go up 14 months after the election and not 2 monts or so.

[jdm61]

How many of these things are you not able to do anymore because you are not permitted to do them, not because they would not otherwise be possible economically? When the government declared everyone in the US to be middle class after WW2, our expectations were pretty modest. Sure, home ownership was something that most young people from urban areas had never dreamed of, but it was not something that the kids who lived in the country thought was so unobtainable. Nowadays, we consider people who have a cell phone, a car, a flat screen TV, expensive sneakers and the ability to eat out 4 times a week at some fast food joint to be "poor" because they don't have 4 or 5 of all of those things.

Yes, some manner of a money source for the ball to get rolling and stay in motion is necessary for society. No doubt. But the part that I see that is flawed with trickle down economics is that the trickle is supposed to belong to you somehow. And it does not. So that is the flaw, no one is guaranteed a trickle, so as we create more trade agreements, and export our jobs, and industries, no matter how dirty the EPA says they are, we lose our trickle. I believe the time has come to re-evaluate where we are trickling, and to what end it does. Sucessful trickle down economics goes against everything my life has shown me to be true about people and their money.

You no longer have a choice between being a modest butcher at a mom and pop grocery store and going to college, if you want to live well. Not so long ago, and less than a generation past, that was quite possible to do and still be a home owner with a family of kids. I keep laughing as I watch the Disney channel over my sons shoulder in the afternoon, an blue collar self-employed exterminator has a house filled with three teenage kids, a new born, a stay at home mom, a house that would cost more than 3 million in California with a ristine lawn and seemingly everything the quiticential American family would want.

You no longer have the option to go forge your way into the wilderness with a wagon and wife, claim a plot of land build all that you need and thrive. You have to earn a place in a system that is stacked against you, it favors the power that greases the economy. That stands in contrast to our rights, and the founding documents of the country.

That stark difference is not something I can overlook when discussing economics, and government, or politics, and foreign affairs. You are disgracing every man and woman that every busted their back and sweat blood for this country if you only think of an issue one at a time, and political parties by platform and dogma only.

We the people, support and defend the ruling class of Americans while foolishly believing that they generally have any of our interests at heart. That is the truth expertly veiled behind our fever to voice concern over the topic of the day, our voice is our right, but what does it weigh? How can everyone ignore the changes in their families since the end of WWII?

[lepto]

The rich hire people and pay them wages. Those people buy things produced buy others, which ensures those jobs. It works exactly the same as the welfare state, except it is a free choice instead of by force of government.

Seconded both in your belief in capitalism (that would be trickle down economics) and how it works. I'd say that we have definitive proof from all over the world that command economies (North Korea / Soviet Union) and creeping socialism (France / Spain / Portugal / Greece) are failures why would we wish to emulate either system?

We've transferred huge amounts of wealth to the upper classes these last 30 odd years. Federal tax rates are lower than they have been in decades and doubly so for the wealthy. It would seem we've followed the trickle down model to a "T" so why aren't we awash in jobs with a, correspondingly, vibrant middle class? Also, how much government involvement in the economy transforms it into a "command" economy?