Jan. 5, 2009
Big Tax Cuts In The Works
Politico: With Benefits For Businesses, Obama Vies For Bipartisan Support For Stimulus Package
-
Photo
(CBS)
-
In-Depth
Q&A: Stimulating Ideas
What's the best way to distribute funds of next economic stimulus package?
The revelation is part of an intricately orchestrated rollout of the plan that includes an appearance by Obama on Capitol Hill on Monday and a major speech about the economy later in the week.
Obama plans to ask Congress for a stimulus package of $675 billion to $775 billion, so the planned tax cuts will total about $270 billion to $310 billion, the officials said.
Obama strategists say he wants to get 80 or more votes in the 100-member Senate, and the emphasis on tax cuts is a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support.
But officials say the tax cuts will be based on historical and empirical evidence of what works, not ideology. Rather, the targeted tax cuts will be designed to stimulate job growth in the private sector and help middle class families, the officials said.
For families, the tax cuts include the $500 Making Work Pay payroll tax credit Obama proposed during the campaign.
For businesses, the tax cuts would include breaks for small employers and a "new jobs credit."
Obama is scheduled to meet Monday with congressional leaders and will update them on what economists have told him about the country's financial outlook, stressing the imperative for action and his eagerness to work with them on the specifics.
While meeting with the leaders, Obama plans to say that a significant crisis needs a significant response, but one that is disciplined and targeted. The test for components of the stimulus plan will be whether they create jobs, jump-start the economy and lay the foundation for significant long-term investment.
Obama will emphasize his desire for transparency, with oversight and strict accountability, aides said.
Robert Gibbs, the incoming White House press secretary, told reporters as they flew from Chicago to Washington with Obama on Sunday evening: "We've seen Christmas sales, consumer confidence and obviously upcoming job numbers which underscore that a very serious situation has only gotten worse and isn't likely to get better any time soon."
The Labor Department is releasing figures Friday that could show the country's job losses last year were the worst since World War II.
Later in the week, probably Thursday, Obama plans to give a speech in the Washington area taking the case for his package directly to the public, emphasizing the urgency of the crisis and the fact that unemployment could slip over 10 percent if decisive action is not taken.
Obama will talk about the economic crisis and the response it requires, and the setting will be a serious one that will make the appearance very different from a campaign speech, aides said.
The speech is designed as a contrast to the approach taken by President George W. Bush, who has been criticized for not sufficiently explaining his solutions to the economic crisis, including the Wall Street bailout that has now been extended to automakers.
Aides described the speech as part of a carefully planned effort to sell the stimulus package to the country, including nationwide travel by Obama and his inner circle.
About 10 percent of the stimulus package will consist of expansion of unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance for people whose coverage might otherwise be terminated.
The package also consists of infrastructure investments such as roads and bridges; long-term investments in energy, health care and education; and aid to states, such as more generous Medicaid reimbursement rates.
The proportions those measures will take in the final passage have not been specified.
By Mike Allen
© 2009 POLITICO
|
We cover politics with enterprise, style, and impact. |
Video and Galleries from Politico
-
Video
McCain's Comeback Chances
-
Video
Cheney Condemns Russia
-
Video
Novel Based On Laura Bush?
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 72 Comments________________________________________
Posted by peace4321
What Bush did was spend 3 Trillion dollars on wars that yielded no tangible assets whatsoever. Money used to create a bride or a road continues to pay long term dividends for years if not decades. A bomb or cruise missile adds nothing to this countries balance sheet and hurts economic growth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense the theft from those who hunger and are not fed-- those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone-- it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the houses of its children.- Dwight D Eisenhower
Boy was he ever right.
2025 billion is a lot of high roller taxes.
Anyone ever hear of Hyper Inflation before?
Posted by peace4321
Summarizing some key details from chapter 8 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)%u2019s 2007 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2005:
* World military expenditure in 2006 is estimated to have reached $1204 billion in current dollars;
* This represents a 3.5 per cent increase in real terms since 2005 and a 37 per cent increase over the 10-year period since 1997;
* The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total;
SIPRI also comments on the increasing concentration of military expenditure, i.e. that a small number of countries spend the largest sums:
* The 15 countries with the highest spending account for 83 per cent of the total;
* The USA is responsible for 46 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5 per cent each.
These numbers speak for themselves. Oh, they also don''t count the separate appropriations used to fund Bush''s boondoggles.
Oh give me a break! I''m furious that Democrats have wasted so much time and energy trying to devise ways to keep Roland Burris off the floor rather than gather up research to wage a P.R. campaign to bolster THEIR ideas that project spending rather than tax cuts or cutting checks are the optimal way to go.
Has anybody done any research whatsoever? Kind of like to the degree they did with the bank bailout? Grrr!!!!!
Frist of all this does makes sense. And second of all you wing nuts that are slaming Obama''s ideas well, at least he has some unlike you clowns.
The fiscal family value neocon party of god is just out of luck. By the way with the loses the GOP incured and if they continue on their present course of not wanting to work with the Democrats they will be in the political wilderness for a very long time.
This is fact you have angered the swing voters and contrary to your wing nut belief we are not uniformed conservative voters we are the middle of the road you know the ones who you say always get run over.
Keep thinking and doing like that and you will be out for a very long long time. In fact if you don''t moderate you will insure it.
Boy was he ever right."
Posted by omega40
Was he?
Who built those guns, ships, and rockets?
Americans.
With the paychecks they got from building them, what did they do?
Feed their children.
Paid their mortgages.
Bought nice cars.
Went on vacations.
Saved for kid''s college.
Never stopped and thought about that, did you.
USA spends the most money on its military and just happens to be the best in the world?
The problem with that is what?
Are you on this planet or living in a fairy tale, too?
Posted by peace4321
My point is that spending more on the military than the next nine biggest spending countries combined so that we may police the world is destroying this country''s economy and stealing it''s prosperity from future generations. As for fairy tales, I suppose you think our worsening economic position is occurring in a vacuum?
Obama, has been talking about these tax cuts for a year now and there are the idiots like peace4321, DaVicar3, HawkSprings etc. that still rant the old tire Democrat this Republican that bull.
Posted by HawkSprings
The point was that infrastructure has a return value that ripples throughout society and keeps returning that value for years.
http://politiqs.tommyjonq.com
Boy was he ever right."
Posted by omega40
Was he?
Who built those guns, ships, and rockets?
Americans.
With the paychecks they got from building them, what did they do?
Feed their children.
Paid their mortgages.
Bought nice cars.
Went on vacations.
Saved for kid''''s college.
Never stopped and thought about that, did you.
Posted by HawkSprings
-------------------
Yes he was right! Absolutely right! Those who built those guns, ships, and rockets were feeding at the public trough. And what did the public get in return for its investment? A lot of wasted young American lives in Viet Nam comes to mind.
-------------------
Yes he was right! Absolutely right! Those who built those guns, ships, and rockets were feeding at the public trough. And what did the public get in return for its investment? A lot of wasted young American lives in Viet Nam comes to mind.
*****
Moreover, if you believe that the majority of the money didn''t end up in corporate profits, you''re fooling yourself. Also, the defense industry in the 70''s and 80''s was totally corrupt. I worked at least one investigation/prosecution ("Ill Wind").
When all is said and done he will do great damage to the US and the era of the United States Socialist Republic will begin.
May God *** this Marxist.
This is demand-side economics vs. supply-side economics.
Supply-side has been exposed as nothing more than an upward redistribution scheme.
Demand-side is what actually drives the economy.
Posted by txgrouch2008
How true!
In the 50s and 60s the US was a true economic superpower with a very strong middle class. The top income tax bracket was 71%.
(The middle class were paying less than they do now.)
---------------------
I understand your frustration around taxes and I share it.
However, I respectfully suggest that you might take a real good look at the 1800''s.
It was a time of incessant boom and bust cycles.
A time of robber barons.
A time when workers were little more than slave labor.
A time when, if you wanted three kids to make it to aduldhood, then you better bring six lives into this lifetime.
A time when Paraquay was ranked a greater power in the world than we were. We were a backwater agrarian country.
It really wasn''t all that wonderful....
Posted by hadenough43
You say that like it''s a bad thing.
Why do you hate america?
This is demand-side economics vs. supply-side economics.
Supply-side has been exposed as nothing more than an upward redistribution scheme.
Demand-side is what actually drives the economy.
Posted by hadenough43
You say that like it''''s a bad thing.
Why do you hate america?
Posted by sparks224
----------------------
If slavehood appeals to you, then move to any one of several third world countries - they will be happy to work you for nothing..
I was being sarcastic.
I enjoy making fun of the neo-cons.
Why?
An economic policy should consist of MORE than just shifting money around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 11:35 AM : Jan 05, 2009
+ report abuse
Since the majority of manufactoring jobs are overseas now we would be taxing almost all imports seeing as how we don''t make hardly anything here in the USA anymore. Big brother is not going to tax corporate America, That belongs to us lowlife workers. I agree with your thought but it will never happen.
Why?
Posted by samael2014
------------------
Y''know, it seems to me that this is a really good question.
In 2000, the conservatives/republicans crawled in bed with the religious right - thus embarking on the path to marginalization.
The policies of the last eight years have been a determined "on foot in front of the other" march to that marginalization.
The recent Presidential election seems to indicate that they have no intention of abandoning that path.
Now why should Obama even so much as attempt to slow ''em down?? They''re pretty much in the wilderness now, let ''em wander around out there...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by brannigon at 11:52 AM : Jan 05, 2009
+ report abuse
I bet you said the same thing when you received your "stimulus" check from your King W didn''t you.
Posted by skyhawk761
... and how about that Wall Street bailout package?
Posted by txgrouch2008
How true!
In the 50s and 60s the US was a true economic superpower with a very strong middle class. The top income tax bracket was 71%.
(The middle class were paying less than they do now.)
Posted by sparks224
And don''t think that hasn''t escaped the notice of the powers that be. The wealthy are certainly cognizant of the fact that as the middle class wealth trickles up to them and there are fewer and fewer middle class to share the tax burden, that they will be expected to shoulder an even larger share to enable the government to protect their overseas interests. Look for the bleating of "national sales tax" to increase as more and more of us slip into the qualifying tax bracket of earned income credit.
Posted by yellow651 at 12:09 PM : Jan 05, 2009
That is a cliche, when the data shows that those mega-wealthy people who have been getting the big tax cuts do not invest in America, but instead invest directly in offshore nations or indirectly via corporations that are moving offshore.
Which means, in turn, that they are not creating any jobs to get people off of your presumably hard-working, presumably American back.
Posted by demswin08 at 12:30 PM : Jan 05, 2009
I tend to agree with you; the more right-wing they are, the more they act like everybody else is lazy and useless.
It would almost be worth letting them kill all the normal people off - if God or whatever gave you a birds-eye view of the look on their face when they finally realized that - No, they weren''t doing it all.
======================================
=======
I told evryone not just one minute ago that he could cut your federal tax to ZERO nad you would still b*tch.
Posted by demswin08
----------------
The problem isn''t the tax RATE. The problem is the tax. The income tax is a tax on production. We could cure a whole lot of problems in our "throw away" culture if we shifted to a tax on consumption instead, it seems to me.
They are waiting for the second coming of Sarah Palin...
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:37 PM : Jan 05, 2009
Ummm...our current crisis - although primarily attributable to inequitable free trade - is greatly compounded by the failure of the primary beneficiaries of Republican tax cuts to allow anything to "trickle down".
I highly doubt that would change if taxes shifted to consumption; in fact, I would expect many, many more moths to grow in their wallets and purses if they knew all they had to do was keep ''em closed to avoid paying taxes.
What would happen, instead, is Americans having to pay taxes on food like Palin rigged up in Wasilla...and that ain''t good.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 12:44 PM : Jan 05, 2009
I think we should abolish all taxes - and thus all public services and war-fighting capabilities.
Then, we can degenerate to a barbaric civilization where you have what you can take and hold.
And when somebody with a lot starts complaining about having to pay you to protect what he has, you just turn around and take everything that he has from him.
And with no police, or state attorneys, or judges, or prisons....lolllll....those would be good times.
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:37 PM : Jan 05, 2009
Ummm...our current crisis - although primarily attributable to inequitable free trade - is greatly compounded by the failure of the primary beneficiaries of Republican tax cuts to allow anything to "trickle down".
I highly doubt that would change if taxes shifted to consumption; in fact, I would expect many, many more moths to grow in their wallets and purses if they knew all they had to do was keep ''''em closed to avoid paying taxes.
What would happen, instead, is Americans having to pay taxes on food like Palin rigged up in Wasilla...and that ain''''t good.
Posted by ibsteve2u
--------------------------
How are they gonna keep their wallets closed and maintain those obscenely ostentatious lifestyles in those mansions .... whether it''s along the shores of Lake Michigan, or the Big Sur, or along those canals in Florida. With the private jets and limousines?
--------------------------
Oh yea, and one more thing.... Couldn''t we make a case that our current crises is primarily attributable to profligate spending .... with borrowed money??
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:49 PM : Jan 05, 2009
a) They buy a LOT of expensive FOREIGN cars and yachts.
b) And do you think they wouldn''t start buying A LOT MORE foreign stuff if we taxed hell out of it?
c) They ALREADY own those expensive mansions - the bought ''em with the proceeds of the Republican R@pe of America, otherwise known as "free trade" and "trickle down" economics.
Do you really think they would move from their current 30 room mansion to a 35 room mansion, if they knew they were going to get hit with a 35% surcharge?
--------------------------
O
h yea, and one more thing.... Couldn''''t we make a case that our current crises is primarily attributable to profligate spending .... with borrowed money??
Posted by hadenough43 a
Only if you make the argument that the accrued interest(often far more expensive than any tax levied) failed to serve as a deterrent to consumerism.
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:53 PM : Jan 05, 2009
That spending didn''t generate much in the way of jobs...$700 billion to keep the Wall Street tycoons safely in their accustomed lifestyles until they figure out a way to make money again....3 trillion down the tubes in Iraq....hardly any of it created jobs.
And that spending FOR SURE did not make up for the jobs lost to inequitable free trade.
How is somebody living in New York and paying $2400 a month rent EVER going to compete with somebody living in Bangalore and only paying $24 a month rent?
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:49 PM : Jan 05, 2009
a) They buy a LOT of expensive FOREIGN cars and yachts.
b) And do you think they wouldn''''t start buying A LOT MORE foreign stuff if we taxed hell out of it?
c) They ALREADY own those expensive mansions - the bought ''''em with the proceeds of the Republican R@pe of America, otherwise known as "free trade" and "trickle down" economics.
Do you really think they would move from their current 30 room mansion to a 35 room mansion, if they knew they were going to get hit with a 35% surcharge?
Posted by ibsteve2u
--------------------
Respectfully, I submit you miss the point. I ain''t talking primarily about the mansions. I''m talking about a lifestyle....a rather wasteful and profligate one, too. It seems to me.
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:59 PM : Jan 05, 2009
lollll...ahhh, I see. You are limiting your vision of those "wasteful and profligate" lifestyles to those you see on TV and in the broadsheets.
Those people aren''t rich....they have chump change.
The truly wealthy ones - the ones so enjoying cannibalizing America for parts - never appear on TV or in the papers, and are usually rarely seen in public.
And they do not live "profligate" lifestyles.
Posted by hadenough43 at 12:59 PM : Jan 05, 2009
lollll...ahhh, I see. You are limiting your vision of those "wasteful and profligate" lifestyles to those you see on TV and in the broadsheets.
Those people aren''''t rich....they have chump change.
The truly wealthy ones - the ones so enjoying cannibalizing America for parts - never appear on TV or in the papers, and are usually rarely seen in public.
And they do not live "profligate" lifestyles.
Posted by ibsteve2u
--------------
And you are assuming that all I look at is TV and "broadsheets (?)". A mistaken assumption.
All I am saying is this.
I think it makes more sense to tax folks on the amount they consume, not what they produce. From a lot of different perspectives. This "conspicuous consumption" culture we have created is trashing an awful lot.
Posted by hadenough43 at 01:10 PM : Jan 05, 2009
I do not deny that our lifestyles will hasten the inevitable crisis when population exceeds the ability of the planet to provide resources.
That day is coming, but is not yet here.
Here and now, today, America has a crisis oriented around simple equations of production and consumption: In their haste to get rich, the Republicans and the neoliberals pushed too much of the production side of our economy offshore, and now we consume more than we produce.
That leads to cash flow out of the country rather than a balance, and from that follows a lack of jobs and the Republicans and the Fed encouraging a credit-driven economy to keep up appearances.
That is the root of our problem...the Republicans and the neoliberals have transformed our economy into a bathtub with a great big drain: Money rushes out and offshore much faster than we can produce the goods and services needed to replenish it.
Posted by ibsteve2u
-------------------------
"pushed too much of the production side of our economy offshore, and now we consume more than we produce" !!!!!
Need I say more !!! ???
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 72 Comments