Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Obama Drops the Hammer and Vows to Kill the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich
President Obama sent the message today through Robert Gibbs on CNN that he plans to kill the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Here’s the video:
Transcript from CNN:
CROWLEY: Do you think the president will do anything other than veto a bill that would keep those Bush tax cuts for everyone intact?
GIBBS: We should protect the tax cuts for the middle-class, and we should let tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires expire.
CROWLEY: Even though recovery is not that great, and people say don’t take money out of this economy, it is not the time for a tax hike, you would go ahead and do it for those making $250,000 and above.
GIBBS: We ought to do something about this deficit, and we ought to protect middle class tax cuts, and the best way to do that is to let the upper-end tax cuts expire, let the wealthy in this country that had been doing fine for years and years and years begin to pay their fair share, and make sure that we protect the tax rate that middle-class families have had for the past many years.
CROWLEY: So the president is totally committed to getting rid of the tax cut for those making $250,000 and above.
GIBBS: Let’s make some progress on our spending by doing away with tax cuts for people who quite frankly don’t need them, tax cuts that have not worked, and have them pay their fair share.
CROWLEY: So is that a yes or a no? The president is completely committed to this, he won’t allow it to happen?
GIBBS: He is 100 percent committed to it.
The point of Robert Gibbs putting this out there today was to get the conversation started. President Obama should be salivating over the possibility of making Mitt Romney defend his unpopular position of lowering taxes for the wealthy.
Numerous polls have shown that support for raising taxes on the wealthy cuts across party lines. As much as Republicans don’t want to talk about it, the Mitt Romney tax plan is radical upward redistribution of wealth. If Republicans gain full control of the federal government they intend to lower taxing on the wealthy while increasing them on the middle class and poor.
The Bush tax cuts are going to be a major issue of the General Election campaign. Even though 74% of Americans support killing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, there are seven Democratic Senators who are actually siding with Republicans on extending the tax cuts for those who need them least.
Obama has had great political success campaigning against the Bush tax cuts, and the comments by Robert Gibbs suggest that the president is getting ready to make the rich paying their fair share a central point of his reelection campaign. It will be interesting to see how the Republican nominee, who is one of those wealthy people who don’t pay their fair share, explains why he and his ilk don’t have to do their part.
The political dynamics have changed. Obama has tamed the toothless Republican tiger, and if he wins reelection there will be nothing stopping him from killing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Related Posts :
President Obama was in rare form today as he anticipated every Republican argument for extending the Bus ...
One of the issues that Republicans have been running on is extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of ...
Even though President Obama wants to kill the Bush tax cuts and 74% of Americans agree with him, there a ...
A new survey of Obama voters by Survey USA found that by a margin of 82%-18% they are more likely to sup ...
David Axelrod said in an interview that the Obama Administration is considering keeping the Bush-era tax ...
67 Responses to Obama Drops the Hammer and Vows to Kill the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich
Celia
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
The federal gas tax has not gone up since 1993. The obsession to call taxes socialist will kill this country. How people think your can redo and repair roads on rates 20 years old? The same for tax cuts. At some time taxes for the rich are going to have to go up…They are doing fine, making so much money and laughing all the way to the bank. Now get rid of the way the rich skirt paying their fair share with all the other laws that favor them…
kevin
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 6:57 am
Not only have fuel tax rates not gone up, they have effectively gone down each year. When you simply put a nominal tax on fuel, $.18 per gallon, for example, then the tax rate falls with every increase in price. Add to this more fuel-efficient vehicles, and you have a real problem
KEVIN1
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Did you even think about what you said prior to posting?
Gas tax is not based on DOLLAR Value of the gas it is based on quantity which is why it is $.18 per gallon. not sure what your argument is? Are you saying the Government is not getting enough? Sure cars have better fuel economy now than they did when the tax was introduced but there are also millions more cars than there was then or even when there was at the last increase. There is also Sate fuel taxes , excise taxes on cars in some states, Tolls, fee’s to obtain and renew licenses and car registrations , fee’s to have your vehicles inspected etc… All of these Fee’s AKA TAXES were originally intended for ROADS
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 9:57 am
I hope to God you’re not advocating raising the price of gas!!! The poor suffer enough as it is, and adding anything to their tax burden is something we should oppose!
The price of gas has become a major economic drain on all of us who make less than the poverty level. Driving/transportation is an absolute necessity in this country, and having to choose between gas to work and putting food on our table isn’t fun. I don’t want to return to those days.
The problem is the rich. Force them to pay their fair share… think long and hard about other taxes.
Oh, and we pay state gasoline taxes. In fact, I’ve severely overpaid them… and because of the way this damned state is run, never got a penny back.
buckeyewill
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
In the 50′s high tax rates help build the US Interstate, fund education, and started NASA.
Both parties need to sit down and negotiate a tax rate they can agree on to finance the Government. You cut taxes across the board when you have a nice surplus.
I KNOW, I KNOW…It’s not gonna happen.
JJM
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
And the funny thing is, I never heard anyone complain about taxes back in the day…
Daddycool
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Negotiate my eye !
Repubs don’t negotiate in good faith.
They’re domestic terrorists and America does not negotiate with terrorists.
What we’re gonna do is this: We are gonna take the 1% by the ankles, turn them upside down and shake everything out of their pockets.Then when we find their house keys, we’ll rob their homes. We’ll find a way to get into the safes that they keep on the Cayman Islands too.
And we’ll get exactly whatever laws we we need passed because the repubs are going away. They’ve blown it and the party that does nothing else besides defend the 1% while lying to the rest of us …. is almost dead. It’s just that simple.
The time for negotiation is LONG gone.
Paul
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Anybody who adheres to Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes should be voted out of office.
Anne
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I wish the Obama admin wouldn’t use the term “having the rich pay their fare share”. Instead they should explain that the governmental budget cannot continue to afford to give the
breaks and go without that revenue. It was a short term bonus set up by Bush, who did nothing right, and it’s exceeded it’s planned duration.
Sarah Jones
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Why not use it? It’s polling at like 90% (having the rich pay their fair share).
Duh
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 12:46 am
Protip: The 1% pays more of the nation’s taxes (as a percentage) than it brings in as income (as a percentage) – they pay their fair share.
Before we talk about tax increases, how about we get spending under control. If you raise taxes, the government is just going to spend more.
dc
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 8:32 am
…the 1% own 80% of the wealth. They need to buck up. I don’t feel sorry for them. There taxes go down while the middle class tax goes up as the cost of living goes up. Not Fair.
DC
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 8:47 am
1. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth: As Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out, the richest 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. Sociologist William Domhoff illustrates this wealth disparity using 2007 figures where the top 1 percent owned 42 percent of the country’s financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home). How much does the bottom 80 percent own? Only 7 percent:
2. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income: While the richest 1 percent of Americans take home almost a quarter of national income today, in 1976 they took home just 9 percent — meaning their share of the national income pool has nearly tripled in roughly three decades.
3. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds: The Institute for Policy Studies illustrates this massive disparity in financial investment ownership, noting that the bottom 50 percent of Americans own only .5 percent of these investments:
4. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt:
Using 2007 figures, sociologist William Domhoff points out that the top 1 percent have 5 percent of the nation’s personal debt while the bottom 90 percent have 73 percent of total debt:
5. The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s: Not only are the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans taking home a tremendous portion of the national income, but their share of this income is greater than at any other time since the Great Depression, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities illustrates in this chart using 2007 data:
READ MORE…thinkprogress.org/economy...
David
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 8:53 am
If you think that’s fair, then how about I give you 90% of $10,000 as a yearly income (i.e. $9000) instead of 40% of $1,000,000 (i.e. $400,000). Apparently you’d prefer the $9000 because it’s less tax…as a percentage…
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 10:00 am
LIKE HELL THEY DO!
Read the research (and not the lies coming from the 1%er mouthpieces) and stop protecting those goddamned bastards!
They don’t pay their fair share. Many of them not only don’t pay taxes, but they get benefits back from the government that ordinary people (and the poor) cannot get. Either you’re a paid liar or you need to go back to school and learn to think for yourself.
Roy Boy
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I wish there was a way to know what the percentage of families earning over $500,000 had children serving in the armed forces, I suspect a very low one.
js33
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
well played pres.. im liking you more and more everyday.. your playin a great long game!!
Mimi Higham
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
I want to know just who the democrats are that dont want to support that. If they think we are going to let them get a pass b/c they are democrats, they are WRONG, VERY WRONG. The President has taken his kid gloves off, we democrats have taken ours off. We are going to show them in Nov state & federal the 99% are taking OUR country forward & not backwards. Republican/Tea Party you have woke a sleeping giant, no more will we let you continue to destroy OUR country.
wildwildwest
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
“Two retiring Democratic senators, Jim Webb (D-VA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have gone on record as opposing killing the Bush tax cuts. A bigger concern for Democrats is that there are five incumbent senators who also oppose letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Within that group, four are running for reelection this year. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). Sen. Mark Pryor is up for reelection in 2014 which has helped him delay a decision on the issue, but being that he faces a tough reelection campaign in Arkansas, the odds are that his own political survival may require voting for an extension of the Bush tax cuts.”
Duh
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 12:47 am
Wasn’t Ben Nelson the guy who took the $100M Medicaid benefit in return for supporting the ACA in the Senate? Hrmm.
margie tackett
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
i commend the president for finally standing up to the republican bullies in my opinion it is about time .the rich and fruity need to start paying thier fair share we have been doing it for years while they have gotten richer .i am not against rich people i just do not like raciest. that is wrong in the eyes of God .
COOLDADDIO
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
I like this, it could not be a more pertinent issue for THIS election, specifically because the GOP has “put-up” such a benefactor of the cuts at issue here; I’m dying to see his response. I believe it will only widen the gap between the haves (M.R.) & (small %) and the rest of us (majority) If played correctly, I believe this to be the NAIL….
connie
Jul. 8th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
How anybody can claim that the millionaires are creating jobs and at the same time claim unemployment is way to HIGH is beyond comprehension. Giving the wealthiest more tax breaks after PROVING they haven’t worked over the past 10 years would be stupid. It’s like giving an employee a raise or even paying them at all, that’s not done a lick of work for the past 10 years.
labman57
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:06 am
There is simply no data to support the supposition that providing disproportionately huge tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthiest people results in job creation or other significant economic growth.
The federal tax burden of the average American taxpayer is at its lowest in the past 50 years. In addition, many corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes due to gaping loopholes that their well-paid tax attorneys are only too happy to exploit.
The combined effect has been a dramatic decrease in federal revenue, which has made a significant contribution to the current federal deficit and rising national debt.
Despite all of this, to most Republicans, the corporate and individual tax rates are simply not low enough. They seem to regard the federal budget as a drunken game of limbo — how low can you go … before you become so unstable that you simply collapse.
Enter the Republican think tank: since the currently provided huge tax breaks for the wealthy clearly have had no stimulating effect on job growth, let’s conclude that we need to further extend said tax cuts indefinitely in order to stimulate job growth.
In fact, the only result that the GOP truly expects is the one that will occur — the rich will get richer at the expense of everyone else.
Congressional Republicans continually promote the fallacy that tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy will stimulate job growth. However, this is simply their cover, their disingenuous talking point designed to try to sell their Reaganomic bill of goods to the public.
Ultra-wealthy Americans made a major investment in the Republican Party during the 2010 mid-term elections. The GOP is simply carrying out the job for which they have been duly paid.
Reality check — It’s not about whether or not to generate additional tax revenue. It’s all about which subset of Americans can provide the extra revenue with the least detrimental impact on their essential needs.
Don’t pee on my shoe and call it trickle-down economics.
Chad Smith
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:07 am
Wait, but this will hurt the job creators! I’m glad I’m behind a screen because that was tough to type with a straight face. It’s been proven at this point that what so many of us have believed, that giving the rich huge tax breaks, would not, in fact, help the economy via the trickle-down effect. Get ready to pay your fair share like the rest of us, 1%ers.
Coleman
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:14 am
Can anyone of you idiots explain how raising taxes on the rich creates more jobs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Kirk
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 4:58 am
Simple. When tax revenues go up, people like police, firefighters and teachers get hired. Increasing employment. Then those people spend the paychecks they get buying things. The that spending creates jobs. Then those people spend the extra money they have earned an that creates more jobs. Care to explain how Mittens millions creates jobs sitting in a tax shelter overseas?
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 10:08 am
I’d add to your excellent points, that the rich are as a rule far more crooked and dishonest than the rest of us (this is backed by recent scientific research) and have to be FORCED to do anything that helps others. They generally only help people when they get some sort of benefit out of it.
They’re the people who “invest” in corporations, and encourage profit before people. Corporations will not hire when they have more money (it goes to the rich) – they only hire when they’re forced to (because they won’t make more profit unless they hire people to increase production).
Coleman
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Police, firefighters and teachers are paid by states with funds obtained through property taxes. This article is about the Federal Income Tax. Your post is an overwhelming failure, just like I thought it would be.
Kirk
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Unless, of course, the states taxes are short. Then the Federal Government can, and has, provided funds to the states to keep those people employed. They also can provide funds to states or directly to, oh, I don’t know, repair crumbling infrastructure. Same concept. Its called a STIMULUS.
Have you ever taken an economics class? Perhaps if you took a look into that as opposed to trolling progressive websites you would have a clue. Cheers!
Johnee
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 11:37 am
Can any one of YOU idiots explain how LOWERING taxes on the rich creates more jobs? Hello, McFly?
I’ve had very successful business people that I know howl with laughter when I asked them if lower taxes, loopholes, and subsidies stimulated more hiring in their companies. The simple answer was “no, it just puts more money in our pockets”.
Tina
Jul. 10th, 2012 at 7:01 am
When the rich business’s have to pay higher taxes,they hire more people so they can get those write offs, and alas,they still end up paying lower taxes but folks get jobs.It’s really simple if you THINK ABOUT IT!
drew
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:41 am
Those pesky rich people! Much easier to cow-tow to losers that never worked a day in their lives giving them free housing, free food, free everything and now free healthcare. You blame the rich, despite the fact that they pay MORE taxes than YOU. And you think its fair that they pay even MORE? When does it end with you people? Obviously, you people dont know the value of hardwork. Ingrates.
Adam
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:21 am
Now, you may have been right if you were talking about the dollar amount. As far as the percentage that people who make six figures a more a year, their base tax percentage is LOWER than the people who make less than than that. Aside from that, the majority of people who are very rich come in to their money and are therefore considered old money. Yes, it’s fair to tax people over the one hundred thousand mark but it would be unfair to just give away welfare. I believe that it should be more strictly regulated and that those offices shouldn’t have an abundance of any one minority where they can help their fellow people in the struggle. You are right and you are wrong; such is life.
Johnee
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Dude, you don’t know what the f*** you’re talking about. You’re repeating talking points from the right wing radio playbook. You’re a stooge that has been conned into carrying the water for the very people that want to hold you down. Aaaawww those poor widdle wealthy sociopaths.
FYI. Most people posting on this site are hard working people. I am a small business owner and I don’t have any problem with another business owner striking it rich. I am against a certain type of wealthy business owner….namely the greedy, sociopathic corporatist that buys influence in politics, while not caring if the rest of the planet goes down the shitter.
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Don’t forget the greedy business owner who cheats his/her customers, tries his or her best to stab other businesses in the back, cheats and abuses his or her employees, while laughing all the way to the bank (and doesn’t pay his/her fair share of taxes either).
The ones who move their shop to Mexico and THEN tells the employees they’d lost their jobs when they came into an empty shop on Monday (and calls them jerks and assholes – been there when it happened one time) – while charging the same for his products and pocketing the difference.
I’ve worked for too many of them… have the (literal) scars to show for it.
Johnee
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Yeah and when said greedy business owner gets backed into a corner because of his amoral slimeball business tactics, he jumps into the “hey it’s the free market, I’m not breaking any laws” excuse. Just cuz you can do somethin’ that don’t make it right!!
Dj antz
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:49 am
Wow. I can’t believe how naive & gullible we have become.
What about a balanced budget instead of trying to get cheap votes from retards. You people should stick to reading stupid memes and leave the decisions to the adults.
Vince
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:00 am
Does he propose the highest tax rate go back to 39.6% or somewhere in between? I know I’ll get a lot of disagreement on here for this but I think its crazy that to operate a government needs to take more than a third of any citizen’s income. I truly wish our corporate tax rate was lower so from a financial aspect the US would be more attractive to operate in.
VRuss
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
And again, a poor grasp of Progressive Taxation derails another budget debate.
Here’s the thing: When the highest marginal tax rate is called at say, 50%, That doesn’t mean the govt takes 50% of anyone’s TOTAL annual income. It just takes 50% of the part that sends you over that line. So if you make a million and one dollars a year, and the top tax rate kicks in at 50% for folks making a million or more, then you’re in the 50% bracket, but that does NOT mean you pay $500,000 in taxes. (Though I must say, just about anyone should be able to live comfortably on $500,000 a year…) No, you pay taxes PROGRESSIVELY, which means the 50% rate only applies to the to that top $1 of your income. So you would suffer a total tax increase of fifty cents. Below that point, you pay a lower percentage by bracket. Thus the “Wealth” is the only portion that the taxes are increased on. As far as normal living expenses, every bazillionaire in the country is still paying as much for their first $60,000 of income as anyone else in the country. (Oh, except if they make their money in investments or capital gains, which isn’t actually DOING WORK. That’s taxed at a much lower rate…hmmmm.)
That’s why the red herring of all the “poor folks who don’t pay any taxes” pisses me off so much. EVERYBODY in the country gets the first $20,000 or so of income tax-free. If you make more than that, THEN you get taxed from there on up.
Jonathan
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:09 am
That’s okay. I can probably offset the tax increase with reductions in charitable giving. The federal government can probably make better decisions about what to do with that money than United Way could anyway.
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 10:21 am
I doubt that I could get through to you how unbelievably stupid that comment is.
I’ve worked with those NGOs. They do help people *in some cases*, but most of them mix in a big dose of abuse along with the help. They blame the homeless for being homeless, they accuse the poor of being lazy, and they ask the sick what they did to make themselves sick. They often spend as much on trying to get in more money than they do on the people they help.
The fact is, churches and NGOs don’t have the resources to help people, and when resources are given to them, for the most part the resources (money for instance) go to their top people. I think it really wrong for a homeless shelter to pay the top person nearly $200,000 a year, their next tier maybe in the middle $30k range, and dropping severely from there. Their caseworkers don’t get paid enough to survive unless they’ve got a second income (like from a spouse). Their “clients”??? Treated like criminals and every aspect of their lives micromanaged. Read Vincent Lyon-Callo’s excellent ethnography of a homeless shelter if you want to learn more about how the average homeless shelter treats people and the reality of homelessness.
Oh, and here’s an interesting point. It’s long been known that homelessness is encouraged because the homeless people are used to suppress wages. The “Good Christian” business people in the 1800s used to openly send out agents to encourage single men to become homeless migrant workers, while at the same time vilifying and demonizing them. They’d use them as a threat against their employees… if you don’t take lower wages or ask for decent pay, we’ll replace you with this homeless person. That is the sort of reality we face today, especially in the light of the filthy greed of the rich.
Vince
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:18 am
And in reply to Chad Smith, with all fairness the one percent is any household making over $383,000 they already are paying $100k in income, and 10k in payroll tax. Plus in our system if they are extravagant spenders lavishly living as many portray then they are paying taxes on every purchase at a national avg. of 9.4%. So what limit is fair do you propose is fair? Especially when you take into account 40-51% of Americans don’t pay any income tax in our system how can our current system be considered fair. Most people making this type of money had to take extraordinary risk whether starting a business or taking on huge college loans for medical or other professional school and are unfairly penalized for taking on risk and succeeding.
labman57
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:22 am
Mr. Etch-a-Sketch attempted to hit his reset button today — during a speech to his ultra-wealthy donors in the Hamptons — by proclaiming that his main concern is the well-being of the poor and middle class … all evidence to the contrary.
Reality Check — Mitt Romney doesn’t worry about the problems of poor people … because there is a “safety net” … which he wants to defund … because people (including single, full-time moms) who depend upon financial assistance such as food stamps lack dignity … because you must be completely self-sufficient to have self-worth … unless you inherited vast wealth … in which case you are inherently highly dignified … because you are a person of power and authority … who gets to enjoy the sheer pleasure of firing people … which Mitt did countless times while running Bain Capital, creating huge profits … for himself and his fellow investors … at the expense of fired workers … who, as a result, often joined the growing ranks of poor people in America … which Mitt doesn’t worry about.
Joker
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:23 am
$250,000 for a family != Millionaire/Billionaire. $250,000 is still the middle class in the US. Upper middle class, yes, but there is still an important distinction there. I agree that millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share. However, taxing the upper middle class is a different story.
Joshua
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 5:01 am
Really? Only 2% of the country makes $250,000 or more (source:www.politifact.com/florid...) and you thing that’s middle class? That’s foolish. 2% counts as UPPER! What kind of country do we live in where we still count the richest 5% of people in the middle class? And how do pretend to lump together people who make $40,000 and people who make $250,000 in the same category?
Coleman
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 11:45 am
You think $250,000 is rich/upper class in Manhattan for a family of four? Or D.C.? Or San Francisco? Especially when the income earner loses about 1/3-1/2 of that immediately to taxes on the city, state and federal level? Why don’t you do your homework before you let your ignorant greed and envy make your political decisions for you?
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Greed and envy?
Is it greed and envy when those damned rich make fun of you to your face and tell you “get a job” when you can’t even put food on the table?
I could go on and on. The poor aren’t lazy, they aren’t greedy, and they want to be treated fair. That’s it. The rich… to them “fair” is all of the money going into their pocket and the poor bowing to the floor when they walk by. (I wonder how much longer before they demand our daughters for concubines and our sons for slaves.)
$250,000 a year is rich. I don’t give a single damn how much their “expenses” are… if they don’t like it where they live, they can move and commute in – like the rest of us ALREADY DO. The poor can’t move, and they don’t have much choice or say in what happens to them. Even if the rich were paying over a third in taxes, that still leaves a hell of a lot more than most of us see in years. Yes, YEARS. Plural. Oh, and don’t bother insulting us with the ubiquitous “get a job!” insult. Most of us work a lot more and harder (and smarter) than the rich ever did. How many damned hours a week do you want us to work anyway? (Thank God for labor laws and the much maligned unions!) However, since we don’t have the resources and they do, they control us. It’s not fun being told “You want a raise of a quarter an hour? If you don’t like what you’re getting now, I can always find someone to replace you!” That’s what I heard from one rich bastard who actually cut my wages (to 25c above minimum) – and yes, like usual he was a crook, and if he’d been caught doing some of the horrific things he did, he’d be sitting in prison instead of finding new people to screw.
Shawn
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:54 am
What kind of crap is this? Obama has had great success campaigning against the Bush tax cuts? He was the one that extended them. And then they say Romney is rich and not paying his fair share? Did you forget that Obama is rich, and the Democrats exempted themselves from having anything to do with Obamacare? It doesn’t matter which party you vote for, both are a losing proposition. The only good they are for are dividing the country so whatever force may want a weakened state to take over will have it. Petty squabbling isn’t going to make a difference. Real change is electing someone that will make a difference, and it won’t be a Republican or a Democrat. You’ll have to write them in.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 7:17 am
The Dems did not exempt themselves. They cannot do that without exempting ALL of congress.
Obama is worth 4 million, Romney 257 million. Quite a difference.
Obama extended the tax cuts as part of an agreement to get other things like extended unemployment. He made it clear then that they would not be extended again
kevin
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:59 am
$250,000 per year is a lot of money now? That’s mid-range salary in the Bay Area. He should tax the 0.01% — those making over $2,500,000 per year.
wow
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 3:04 am
Drew and Coleman have posted the only two sane comments yet. Americans making a lot of money already pay a lot of taxes. As a matter of fact, they a higher tax percentage out of pocket than the average American. The reason for tax cuts for the wealthy is to 1) even out the taxation to not over tax a certain small population and 2) to promote investment by the upper echelon of money makers to hopefully stimulate job growth.
More taxes on the rich just feed social programs like welfare, which in turn, produce fat, lazy deadbeats that give nothing to society and are content with sucking air and tax revenues away from everyone else.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 7:14 am
Thanks for the talking points, even though they are wrong.
The hilarious part is that if you make 40,000 you pay 36% of that in taxes. If you make a million, you pay far less. Why doesnt the person making the million pay the same %?
Your #1 above is hilarious as well. Investments by the rich seldom create jobs. They only serve to make more money for the millionaire.
Amy
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 3:07 am
I completely agree with drew. We should raise the tax rates on the people who are USING the services provided by the federal government. The rich are already paying for you and your children to live a comfortable life style, but all you want to do is take from people who worked hard to earn what they have. Among those who earn their money shadily, there are actual hard working Americans who have half of their income taken from them just because they went to school and put in the effort to get a good job that pays well. In my opinion, taxes should be payed according to amount of government services used by the person.
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 10:28 am
The lie in your words is that the poor don’t work hard. The reality of life is that the poor work far harder than the rich ever do.
How goddamned many hours do you want people to work anyway? 120 hours a week just to pay the bills? (In the county east of ours, a person has to work 93 hours at minimum wage just to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. There are counties in Florida where it’s 120 plus hours a week.) Why not chain them to their work station/job and just end all of the bullshit about freedom and equality.
OH, that’s right… can’t let people think about things such as debt peonage and fairness. Can’t let them know that they’re being exploited and abused… can’t let them think for themselves, after all.
RehcamretsneF
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 4:45 am
I find it very funny how both sides fail to fix the actual problem, which is corporate taxes. the “250k+” threshhold isnt that much freakin money.
1%?
www.nytimes.com/interacti...
lets look at some stats. lets use top 90% – 99.9%, average income 714k. (top 10% averages 137M, so that doesnt matter, right?) lets just guess an extra 15% increase. that comes out to $100-150 BILLION. thats it folks. is $150 BILLION gonna do a damn thing to this country? hahaha no. sorry, more than a trillion dollars more deficit to go.
stop the lobbying bull, crack down on the corporate greed. Which btw is where all the money goes, hope u know. Trickle down effect? noone gets the money. if anyone spends any money anywhere, the corporations rake in hundreds of millions/billions/TRILLIONS, and workers MAY get a few cents out of it. they keep the money, things go bad, they raise price to keep bottom line. introduce inflation. introduce poor people. introduce taxing everyone but the corporations to fix the problems the corporations and the “bubbles” (education, medical, formerly housing) created.
wake up and smell the bacon folks. You argue a non-issue. The real issue, no party will tackle. game over. America loses.
taxing another 150 billion out of rich people accomplishes nothing, and each year, the budget increases and more tax dollars go to waste. And no, im not gonna start on the fact that “waste” is most the reason we’re in this mess. screw it, yeah i will.
federal workers. guaranteeing jobs with little to no workload because everyones too nice to say “gtfo” and get a job that accomplishes something. Ive been allllll around this country seeing what lots of feds do, and trust me. its not worth the tax dollars. Worst case? doin a job somewhere, i had to get ahold of the point of contact while inside a secure room. i call. nothing. i go thru procedures and walk 100 yards to his office. he’s eating a banana. hard work there, Lou.
Cutbacks are whats needed in this country. the spending must stop. the waste must go. all the BS for votes is killing every single one of us.
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Another right-wing nutcase. Maybe when they cut something that means you or a member of your family dies, you’ll wake up and see what’s really going on. Or when the cuts means that your home is no longer protected or your children don’t get educated, maybe you’ll realize how wrong you were.
People work when they work for the government. That they don’t is another conservative lie.
Guess where all those corporate dollars go, by the way? To the greedy rich, who don’t pay their fair share. (I do agree that the corporations need to also pull their weight, and that the Government needs to REALLY crack down on them.)
Johnee
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Wellll, even though he is misguided and paints government employess with a broad brush he did put a big part of the blame at the corporations door step, so I wouldn’t say “right wing nutcase”.
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
(Sigh) You’re right.
There seem to be a lot of Republican trolls out today, and I’ve been dealing with a tougher time than usual. Work we’d counted on has been delayed for possibly weeks, making it much harder to survive.
Angry Voter
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 8:04 am
The US was founded on property taxes.
The thing about property taxes is rich people had to pay them because when they didn’t, the property was seized.
Income tax is what keeps working people working. Why should doctors working 60 hours a week pay a higher % than billionaires who don’t work at all? The system we have today is exactly backwards.
People who actively work should not be taxed on that work. People who passively collect income from property should be taxed.
Sugel
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 9:39 am
The Bush tax cuts (which Congress just voted to extend) are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich.
Nebroxah
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Man, who is this chick on CNN? She may as well be auditioning for Faux news with how obviously right-slanted her questions are. She even completely ignored a question posed by Gibbs, just like a proper right-wing robot.
paul
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
everyone who is poor wishes they were rich and then u would want a tax break.i believe the rich work very hard for what they have. im tired of paying taxes so people can be on welfare and all those goverment assisted programs.its suppose to be to help u out while ur down but most people on welfare dont try and do anything to better themselves cause if they work there welfare stops and they dont want that. lets start drug testing all welfare recipients and see how many are still able to get it when all is said and done. im below middle class and i think we need a tax hike, how else are we gonna get out of this deficit. stop complaining about the rich cause your jelous. if i was rich i would want a tax break and anyone who sais they wouldnt is a lier. i wish we could stop welfare all together and put it in social security for when i get older. i hate lazy welfare sucking people who expect me to work so u can get a check every month. why dont u work so i can get a check evry month. doesnt sound to good to u now does it. im in favor of a tax hike. how else are we gonna get out of debt. obama is doing anything. i want a new prsident that will stop trying to please everyone and fix our econemy. the welfare people get free healthcare and now i have to pay for it or else. that doesnt sound right to me.
A Walkaway
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Here’s a hint – don’t buy any bridges. From your writing, you’re ignorant and stupid enough to think you can.
Here’s another hint- the people on “welfare” don’t want to be, except for a few freeloaders (which are extremely rare, but granted they do exist). The “person on welfare” might be your 84 year old grandfather (or father), or someone whose health was destroyed by a greedy corporation that closed the doors and went overseas rather than paying for putting known toxins in food, or a young lady who was raped and because of Republican cruelty, was forced to raise the offspring of her rapist (and thus forced to drop out of school and forget her dreams including finding a decent job). The stories are myriad, but the end result is that they CAN’T work or get work. Even drug pushers often would rather earn a decent living at a real job, but because of the way poor people get treated (especially minorities), they would rather live on the outside with a smidgen of respect, than be treated like slaves on the inside.
Poor people don’t want to be rich… or they want EVERYONE to be rich so we’re all treated the same. They want the chance to earn their own way and be paid fairly and treated with dignity.
The only people I’ve met who didn’t want to work are the right wing low-brow “Good ol’ boys” who’d rather sit around drinking beer than earn a living, and they were all staunch Republicans. All of them were expressing those sorts of sentiments while working, by the way. They didn’t reflect people in general.
clarence swinney
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Ridiculous. Top 2% own 50% financial wealht and get 30% of individual income. Do not need the tax cut which We just borrow to give to them.
Wil the people ever awaken?
Niche Website
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I’m amazed, I must say. Rarely do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is something too few folks are speaking intelligently about. I’m very happy that I came across this during my hunt for something concerning this.
Books
Jul. 9th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Good for Obama! He should have done this a few years ago, but better late then never.