Do you remember when Bush kept calling for making the tax cuts permanent? We would have never ending deficits which would have required the complete elimination of Social Security and Medicare. This was Reagan's plan all along, get the country in so much debt that they would have to eliminate the social programs that actually help people.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with President Clinton's comments, but I do find it a bit of fresh air that there can be different opinions within a political party. Unyielding orthodoxy and dogmatism on both sides of the aisle have created the type of political gridlock that can cause irreparable harm to the economy and the country.
Combined with Jeb Bush's scolding of members of the GOP, it's actually an encouraging day where debate and dialogue can actually thrive in a democracy!
Um (saying this as a totally independent person with no leanings toward one or the other political party), we have a Republic, not a Democracy. Look up the definitions in the dictionary.
Bill Clinton wasn't offering a viable solution - which he's completely capable of offering. He was siding with Republicans.
Don't put him on a pedestal for something he's not doing. He has no moral obligation to provide solution's to today's problems since his people chose not to vote for his wife for President ...
We absolutely must let the $70 billion tax breaks for the wealthy expire, they should have never been done in the first place. One of the major ways Clinton closed the deficit gap was to raise the rates on the wealthy a few percent. What did Bush do? He could not wait to give the rich more tax breaks and start running deficits again.
A more important question is whether Summers and Clinton believe it's dangerous to let even the upper-income tax cuts expire, or whether they believe only the tax cuts for families making under $250,000 really matter. Summers and Clinton subsequently claimed it was the latter, which is Barack Obama's position. Republicans, like House Speaker John Boehner, are claiming this is a flip-flop, and that Clinton (at least) meant the upper-income tax cuts must also be extended.
But there's no good reason to believe this is the case. Both Summers and Clinton believe that upper-income tax cuts are pretty useless for stimulating the economy (since the affluent can spend just fine without tax cuts). If you don't think a tax cut is stimulative, then there's no reason you'd think letting it expire would damage the economy. The reason the Republicans have either missed this, or have chosen to ignore it, is that their political strategy for enacting tax cuts has always been to lump together stimulative tax cuts for the middle-class with non-stimulative tax cuts for the wealthy while claiming the entire package boosts the economy. But just because Republicans employ this spin, and may even believe it, doesn't mean the rest of us should. (Set aside the Keynesian logic they militantly oppose in other contexts.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
In the interest of truth and accuracy, I believe these statements are likely inaccurate because it's not that rich people don't spend their money - it's that they don't spend as high a proportion on life necessities like food and rent.
Instead they're more likely to be the landlord who buys the home that people pay them to rent.
Which could potentially cause the housing market to stagnate.
And stocks might also go down if they have less money to invest in the market.
I would imagine Oprah isn't stuffing money in her mattress - it's just been shown that people who only make like $20,000 a year, since they don't have a lot left after buying life's necessities, tend to spend, and spend right away, so the 'multiplier' might be a little higher.
It's not the cause of the recession though - Slick Willy and company gave a whole sector of jobs away to China ... whoever makes the worlds' goods will have the world's growth - that still holds true today. No manufacturing, no economic growth - don't be blaming Oprah for paying less tax than before for the recession ... that's just not factually accurate ...
Slick Willy's at it again, trying to undermine Barack as much as he can so he'll lose and Hillary can run in 2016.
Larry Summers is a fool, but Bill Clinton would know that expiring tax cuts aren't contractionary per se IF tax cuts rise and spending does too to the same degree - it's redistributive.
That is why Obama put Hillary in his cabinet. She could easily win over both Obama and Romney. She is a better candidate, smarter and understands the U.S. economy far better than both on the current ballot.
We have a country of unparalled greed and corresponding corruption. We have billionaires that need more than $5 billion they want $10 billion. Greed has taken over America.
The corporations keep having the government they run cut their taxes and not have them pay for ANYTHING they do. And then the ignorant Sheeple wonder why we have no money. And they want to make it worse.
This is a truly pathetic and failed country, America. It makes me literally sick.
by nottblu June 8, 2012 10:58 AM EDT fitshu, if you have never been married and have no children then you have no idea what it costs to raise a child and or support a spouse, there is a reason for those deductions. If I were single without children my finances would provide far greeater spending power and in some ways are jealous of your freedoms.
---
What is the reason for those deductions again? More population? It's an anachronism. Worse that subsidies for oil companies. If you bring kids into this world that you cannot afford to support it's nothing short of child abuse, and and using the tax code to force your neighbor to bail you out has no honor.
Bill Clinton is smart enough to know that the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich have caused the current economic slowdown.
And he also knows that the fake "free market" is a fraud and that he was a part of that with the disastrous Corporation written "Free" Trade Agreements.
The end of entitlements is near (end of the world for people like you.) We've had a couple generations (here and in Europe) get used to leveraging the future to enhance their own personal "fake" prosperity. That is the fraud being perpetrated.
I watched Bill Clinton's discussion with Larry Summers on television and before any commentary by the pundits I was thinking to myself how Clinton's statements were directly (and CLEARLY) in opposition to what the Obama administration has been touting. Clearly, the Obama admin had a serious conversation with Bill to set him straight and get him to back-track and try to "clarify" his statements to reduce the adverse impacts to the current admin's course. It is almost laughable -- it all depends on what your interpretation of the word "is" is. That issue aside, until Obama shows us that he knows how to cut spending and revive the economy, I'd prefer to follow the likes of Scott Walker who took a $4B state deficit and turned it into a surplus during the same period of time that Obama has tripled our national deficit.
Since the Bush Tax Cuts caused the current economic slowdown, permitting all of the cuts to expire should lead to a better economy. So, by your logic, why not?
The most sensible thing Congress can do is reform the tax code according to the guidelines of the Bowles-Simpson plan. By doing this, Republicans will be able to have their cake and Democrats can eat it too.
While Bowles-Simpson tax reform would make the Bush tax cuts permanent (which Republicans want), it would also raise revenue through the tax code to help pay down the deficit (which Democrats want).
This is a Republicon who like the rest of the Cons represents the Top 1% at the expense of the rest of America.
What we need in America is a second political party to compete with the Too 1% Party. There are a few decent progressives in the Dems Party that could lead a second party.
How much longer are people going to be happy knowing they are pretty much just all working to enrich the millionaires and billionaires?
The vast majority of americans are hard working tax paying productive members of society. We go to work to earn wages that support our wonderful standard of living and freedoms. Based on your own illconceived words you are apparently one of the many leaches on society that some how feel entitled to other peoples money. Yourr type is why America is bankrupt, one of the 80 million that receive an entitlement check every single month, one of the 475 that pay no income tax and have no job, your own words prove that assertion. If leaches like you would just move to Cuba or Venzuella or any other socialist country that adheres to your ideology of dependence and failure this country would be far better place and you would be happier. Good By and Good luck!
nottblu Never being married and no chiidren I didn't have that child tax deduction.You like to assume things so I will the do same.You having your child deduction I could call you a leach.I retired to the other side of the world 2yr.ago to get away from people like you. So wrap yourself in flag and have a nice day. P.S where is Venzuella?
fitstshu, taking an "exemption" is not the same as a deduction.
Maybe you should demonstrate some "tolerance", since not everyone can have the typing skills of a Corporate Secretary.
As for the coied "Top 1%"... really wish people would quit feeding off the hype.
Willing to bet TimetoEvolve could not name 10 people in the "Top 1%" who are American Citizens.
As for the attempt to drive them out, let's be realistic, the top 1% only need to denounce their citizenship and claim citizenship to a more tax friendly Nation... viola, their problem solved.
So, keep pushing, we are only one tragedy away from being 100% owned by China.
fitshu, if you have never been married and have no children then you have no idea what it costs to raise a child and or support a spouse, there is a reason for those deductions. If I were single without children my finances would provide far greeater spending power and in some ways are jealous of your freedoms.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Combined with Jeb Bush's scolding of members of the GOP, it's actually an encouraging day where debate and dialogue can actually thrive in a democracy!
Bill Clinton wasn't offering a viable solution - which he's completely capable of offering. He was siding with Republicans.
Don't put him on a pedestal for something he's not doing. He has no moral obligation to provide solution's to today's problems since his people chose not to vote for his wife for President ...
But there's no good reason to believe this is the case. Both Summers and Clinton believe that upper-income tax cuts are pretty useless for stimulating the economy (since the affluent can spend just fine without tax cuts). If you don't think a tax cut is stimulative, then there's no reason you'd think letting it expire would damage the economy. The reason the Republicans have either missed this, or have chosen to ignore it, is that their political strategy for enacting tax cuts has always been to lump together stimulative tax cuts for the middle-class with non-stimulative tax cuts for the wealthy while claiming the entire package boosts the economy. But just because Republicans employ this spin, and may even believe it, doesn't mean the rest of us should. (Set aside the Keynesian logic they militantly oppose in other contexts.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
In the interest of truth and accuracy, I believe these statements are likely inaccurate because it's not that rich people don't spend their money - it's that they don't spend as high a proportion on life necessities like food and rent.
Instead they're more likely to be the landlord who buys the home that people pay them to rent.
Which could potentially cause the housing market to stagnate.
And stocks might also go down if they have less money to invest in the market.
I would imagine Oprah isn't stuffing money in her mattress - it's just been shown that people who only make like $20,000 a year, since they don't have a lot left after buying life's necessities, tend to spend, and spend right away, so the 'multiplier' might be a little higher.
It's not the cause of the recession though - Slick Willy and company gave a whole sector of jobs away to China ... whoever makes the worlds' goods will have the world's growth - that still holds true today. No manufacturing, no economic growth - don't be blaming Oprah for paying less tax than before for the recession ... that's just not factually accurate ...
Larry Summers is a fool, but Bill Clinton would know that expiring tax cuts aren't contractionary per se IF tax cuts rise and spending does too to the same degree - it's redistributive.
Watch your back Barack!!
The corporations keep having the government they run cut their taxes and not have them pay for ANYTHING they do. And then the ignorant Sheeple wonder why we have no money. And they want to make it worse.
This is a truly pathetic and failed country, America. It makes me literally sick.
fitshu, if you have never been married and have no children then you have no idea what it costs to raise a child and or support a spouse, there is a reason for those deductions. If I were single without children my finances would provide far greeater spending power and in some ways are jealous of your freedoms.
---
What is the reason for those deductions again? More population? It's an anachronism. Worse that subsidies for oil companies. If you bring kids into this world that you cannot afford to support it's nothing short of child abuse, and and using the tax code to force your neighbor to bail you out has no honor.
And he also knows that the fake "free market" is a fraud and that he was a part of that with the disastrous Corporation written "Free" Trade Agreements.
While Bowles-Simpson tax reform would make the Bush tax cuts permanent (which Republicans want), it would also raise revenue through the tax code to help pay down the deficit (which Democrats want).
What we need in America is a second political party to compete with the Too 1% Party. There are a few decent progressives in the Dems Party that could lead a second party.
How much longer are people going to be happy knowing they are pretty much just all working to enrich the millionaires and billionaires?
Maybe you should demonstrate some "tolerance", since not everyone can have the typing skills of a Corporate Secretary.
As for the coied "Top 1%"... really wish people would quit feeding off the hype.
Willing to bet TimetoEvolve could not name 10 people in the "Top 1%" who are American Citizens.
As for the attempt to drive them out, let's be realistic, the top 1% only need to denounce their citizenship and claim citizenship to a more tax friendly Nation... viola, their problem solved.
So, keep pushing, we are only one tragedy away from being 100% owned by China.