Why on earth would Obama change his promise on higher taxes on >$250k?

[SnoopDog]

ABC news tonight said that his economic stimulus plan could cost $700 billion (oh like the current bailout heist). Why
would Obama not increase the taxes on those making $250K or greater like he said he would? We need the revenue to pay for
his programs.

To put additional burdens on our USA Credit Card means we pay more in interest payments. We need to raise more revenue - especially
when the money would be used to help AMERICA.

America is in huge financial trouble. We need the money and of all the people in America - the rich are more able to absorb the hit than us middle
class people. When the rich pay more - they give up a trip to Paris. When the middle class takes a hit - we go without food or medicine or electricity.

Why on earth would Obama renege on his repeated over and over tax position on increase taxes on $250K or greater? There is no logical or sane reason
for doing this..

The biggest problems I have right now is who is mandating this change and I wonder what else he will renege on...

I have a right to be concerned... We all voted for Obama to get America back on track...

[BlooInBloo]

1. I dunno, but I'm satisfied it has to be a substantial reason if he's considering a DELAY...

of the promise coming to fruition.


EDIT: And moreover, I'm sure he'll explain his rationale at some appropriate moment.

[Why Syzygy]

13. Two year delay = ZERO

It is set to expire in two years, so delaying it two years means he LIED.

[BlooInBloo]

18. hahahaha! Shush, child. Run along and go play with your red bouncy ball.

[Why Syzygy]

29. What a pathetic response.

You give me the creeps.

[BlooInBloo]

35. (shrug) I'm horribly hungover. But believe you me: I clean up real good!

:rofl:

[kwenu]

21. Busted!

[Why Syzygy]

30. No idea of what you are trying to convey. Nothing.

[BlooInBloo]

33. I think he was agreeing with you. So, you're right in your assessment.

[kwenu]

46. You're a crap starter. That's what I'm conveying. I've yet to see you actually provide info.

that tells me you seriously have a clue about any of this. All you're doing hyping the false notion that this is a MAJOR change with a bunch of weak "the sky is falling" posts and responses.

[Why Syzygy]

97. No wonder I couldn't understand you.

Now I see. You were BUSTING me for "hyping the false notion that this is a MAJOR change with a bunch of weak "the sky is falling" posts and responses".

So rather than debate whether or not it IS a "false notion", you want to arrest me for law breaking.
Without even addressing this objection, I claim "not guilty", your view of my posts supporting my position are moot.

You say I'm hyping a false notion. That this is a MAJOR change. Doing and not doing are the furtherest poles apart. Wouldn't you agree.

votesomemore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-23-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #1

13. Two year delay = ZERO

It is set to expire in two years, so delaying it two years means he LIED.
“The earth is what we all have in common.” .... Wendell Barry .


And maybe you missed this:

votesomemore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-23-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
73. WRONG!

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes /

If they are expected to "give back", that does not sound like, "keep taking your breaks for two more years".

(Sorry for the dupe, but some people are not reading the thread.)
***

I maintain that "giving back" is not equal to continuing the breaks for two more years.

If you just don't like what I write, and are not really interested in THINKING about words and their meanings, and just shout an ambiguous "BUSTED"! I will take note and in the future consider your cryptics to mean just what it looks like. Mental laziness.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Yes, I am sure you have picked up on something he and his team of experts just 'glossed over'.

[GarbagemanLB]

3. Also, he didn't renege on anything. The issue was the DELAYING of a tax increase.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I think what was initially floated was to let the tax cuts on the rich expire in 2010

However remember that the President is not a dictator who makes his own laws like Shrub. Whatever Congress presents, he'll probably work with them to sign off on and Congress seems more adamant about changing the tax plan sooner... but we'll see.

[loyalsister]

5. That one kind of bugs me at first glance

Reminding myself to wait and see what the reasoning is.

[SnoopDog]

9. We will have to wait to see what his reasoning is...but

I don't see the problem with raising the taxes on those making > $250K. And the tax
increase is to what Clinton's rates were...

What possible benefit would it be for America? America is in such a depression - even the rich will need
middle class Americans to have money to buy the product or service of those making that kind of money...

Don't tell me they all believe the 'rich create jobs'?

[Life Long Dem]

15. Sorry too late. The election is over.

Obama did say something about a refund? A refund check?

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

6. Give the guy time,he isn't even president yet. He's just

taken on the toughest job in the world IMHO.

Be patient.

[still_one]

7. Because the immediate problem is stimulus to the economy, not the deficiet

There will be plenty of time to keep that promise after the economy has been stabilized.

[SnoopDog]

17. Valid point but America still needs tax revenues...

Nobody wants to pay more taxes. But if this money is to build schools and roads and create green jobs, we need
to make this close to paygo as we can. And we should start now.

In this care, Obama has a specific need for the tax revenues - to stimulate the economy. And the economy can only be stimulated
by the middle class.

[still_one]

86. You don't need tax revenues immediately to stimulate the economy, at least that is my view

Just look at what is happening

In Iraq we have been spending 10 BILLION dollars a month
They just passed a 750 BILLON dollar financial bailout without oversight

Which as an aside makes it also laughable when they suddenly become financially responsible, and say we cannot give the big three auto companies a 25 billion dollar bridge loan

Don't get me wrong, that may be the right thing to do or not, but with all the money they have wasted in Iraq and elsewhere, 25 billion is a drop in the bucket

Anyway, my point is, stimulating the economy, even though we will get more into debt is OK, because once more jobs are created, those people pay taxes, they buy things, the companies they buy them from pay taxes, and once that is rolling along, then generate the tax revenues

[FrenchieCat]

8. I think it has to do with the recession........

and instead of trying to do something that is normally not seeing as necessarily helping during that time, waiting instead for 12 months when tax cuts expire anyways.

[abumbyanyothername]

10. Stimulus = putting money into the economy.

A tax hike, on anyone, = taking money out of the economy.

[Why Syzygy]

27. The Rich got tax cuts and now they are getting hand outs.

I don't think the "economy" is the winner here.

[DLnyc]

48. I disagree.

People making over 2 million a year, say, do not generally spend all, or even a significant portion, of that money. They simply increase their net worth. Taxing them more moves the money from their investments into direct investments in the infrastructure and future of our country.

On the other hand, taxing the middle class, working class and poor will decrease consumer spending, because these people (us) generally are making spending decisions based on their weekly income. So, for us, less income equal less spending on consumer goods and services like food, travel, clothing, medicine, education, housing, etc.

A tax increase on the 95% of us making less than 250,000 per year = a bad idea in a recession or a depression.

A tax increase on people making from 250,000 to a couple million = arguably not much impact on the consumer spending.

A tax increase on people making more that $2,000,000 per year = a very good idea, especially during a recession turning into a depression, since we need that money in public works projects.

[Two Americas]

50. I am shocked!

You are talking just like a Democrat!

How refreshing.

[DBoon]

62. marginal propensity to consume decreases with income

I think that's how economists state this

[w4rma]

51. A tax hike on money being horded = putting money into the economy. Tax the ultra-wealthy and force

them to circulate their money, even if it has to go through the U.S. government first.

[bbgrunt]

52. that assumes that the rich will actually spend the

money here instead of using it to invest in foreign currency or some other investment that takes the money off=shore.

[laugle]

58. I just heard yesterday, that there is a 32% increase in

Rolls Royce sales, isn't that lovely........

[mkultra]

55. a tax hike doesnt take money out of the economy

a tax hike moves money from one section of the economy to another. Its an artificial transaction.

[Skwmom]

76. Who manufactures most of the goods in the world?

Hmmmm.... I don't think it was the U.S. the last time I checked.

[stray cat]

11. He actually thinks letting it expire on schedule is better with the current economic problems

He is more worried about economic meltdown and the loss of revenue and jobs that entails and isn't willing to exacerbate the problem by a tax break that may ultimately lead to less revenue than it brings in.

[Why Syzygy]

12. This is major

because it was a HUGE portion of his appeal and campaign platform. Reverse the damage done by Bush's tax policy. If he isn't going to do that, why the hell don't we just let George stay.

:nuke:

[jenmito]

25. You can't fault him for adapting to changing (worsening) circumstances. He, unlike Bush or

McCain, is NOT going to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent. He's going to let them expire.

[iamthebandfanman]

79. some people would say that tax break

for the wealthy IS part of the problem...

[jenmito]

109. And some OTHER people would say that not making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent

(by letting them expire at the end of 2010) is what he was planning on doing for months now (including Jonathan Alter who just said so this morning on MSNBC).

[mkultra]

56. hes doing exatcly what he said he would

hes letting the bush tax cuts on the rich expire. go back to free republic.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

69. That should have been the sarcasm

switch instead of nuke. What are you if you think I was serious?

[mr1956]

14. Maybe I heard wrong

But I always thought Obama intended to not renew the Bush tax cut when it expires. The talk of a delay could just be the MSM putting their spin on this. I don't remember talk of immediately repealing the tax cut coming from Obama.

I am content to wait and see how this plays out in the coming months. I like to read things as they happen rather that swallow whole the prognostication of the various talking heads in corporate held media outlets.

[ellacott]

34. You didn't hear wrong, that's what he said

I don't understand what people are getting upset about. It's apparent that many people really weren't paying attention during this campaign.

[BunkerHill24]

57. I thought he meant returning taxes where they were before Bush's tax cuts

for the wealthy.....am I right?

[kwenu]

16. No one with a lick of sense raises taxes when you're teetering on complete financial meltdown.

We can barely figure out how to solve the crisis we have and there can only be so many shocks to the financial system when we are in critical condition. A new tax structure delivered at this time would add unnecessary confusion and cause people to contract spending even more.

What I have heard is that the focus on giving the middle class financial relief and incentives to spend will remain the main focus in the coming months. The plan as I understood it was to allow Bush's cuts to expire normally so nothings changed really.

[SnoopDog]

20. That is true if you are the middle class...however

if you are making $250K or more, the small additional tax revenue (according to that tax calculator Obama had)
can be spent not only to stimulate the economy but getting something in return like a new school or a road or land for geothermal energy.

[kwenu]

32. You can't ignore the confusion that would cause. The Bush Tax cuts can still expire normally.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Bush tax cuts were going to be taken out immediately. I always understood that they would be allowed to expire and revert back to the Clinton era levels.

[SnoopDog]

39. Where I got the idea that Obama would reverse the Bush tax cuts were

....for two reasons: Obama's Change.gov Agenda said "Reverse Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" and did not say let them 'expire'.
Obama used more proactive language and I never heard him say that he will 'let Bush's tax cuts expire'.

JPAK had a good explanation for why he may be doing this - it is because he does not have a 60 senate majority and
he may need to throw some bones...

[kwenu]

43. All I can tell you is that during the campaign it was CLEAR that he intended to let them expire.

In fact, I believe it was mentioned in the debates.

[ellacott]

54. He DID say he wanted to let them expire

He's said this throughout the campaign.

"No change to the tax plan - at all," the aide said.

Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy by asking the Democratic-controlled Congress to allow President Bush's tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. When they expire, it could pump in about $72 billion a year toward balancing the budget, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/08/2008-11-08_obama_says_hell_tax_the_rich_roll_back_b.html

ETA: other links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxh-Wb3FGNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3bMw8nWloU

[Why Syzygy]

71. You are absolutely WRONG

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

If they are expected to "give back", that does not sound like, "keep taking your breaks for two more years".

[high density]

105. That says nothing about a time table about when it will happen

It's clear that DU wants something better than instant gratification after Nov 4...

This is just the media regurgitating a previous story. See this from September: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-del_n_124647.html

[ellacott]

106. You are absolutely wrong

I know what I've heard and have provided links to back it up. "Give back" could be rolling back the tax cuts.

[Breeze54]

28. The bush tax cuts are one of the big reasons we are in this mess!!

:grr:

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Didn't FDR raise taxes during the depression?

[jpak]

19. Because he might not have an ironclad 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate

He needs to get some repugs on board to pass his economic agenda.

The Bush tax cuts will go away in 2010 anyway.

This is an unpleasant compromise but good political strategy.

[SnoopDog]

22. Thanks - jpak

That might be the best and only explanation - and yes, it now makes sense.

The give and take needed for negotiating...

thanks again -

[Skittles]

24. oh please

"unpleasant compromise"? it fucking STINKS

[jpak]

38. No shit

but that is reality

[Skittles]

41. that is NOT reality

those tax cuts help destroy the economy and should be revoked ASAP - FUCK that compromise BULLSHIT

[jpak]

45. Obama knows the Senate and how it works

GOP assholes and/or Lieberman could filibuster EVERY FUCKING BILL HE PROPOSES.

He needs 60 votes to override any GOP filibuster.

If he doesn't have it - NOTHING WILL FUCKING HAPPEN.

NO CHANGE - NO NOTHIN'

GET IT!!!111

:D

[Skittles]

94. LET THEM FUCKING FILIBUSTER

LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE FIRSTHAND WHO THOSE GREEDY GOP BASTARDS FIGHT FOR

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Actually the tax hikes can be passed via reconciliation, only requires 51 votes

And that's actually 50 because Biden breaks the tie.

[Why Syzygy]

72. This argument will never sway me . ever again

We all know that Bush signed laws into being with NO VOTES, even while the Congress was not in session!
He even seated judges, running an end run around Congress. Votes? ha! Bush has shown a POTUS doesn't need them!

[ellacott]

23. He hasn't reneged on any promise

He always said that he wanted to let those tax cuts expire.

[kwenu]

36. CORRECT!

[Incitatus]

40. That's what I remember him sayihg. I don't know why so many are making a big deal out of this. nt

[ellacott]

44. I don't know why people are making a big deal of this either

I think they are looking for something to get mad about. People are now believing everything said from the MSM. People aren't doing any fact checking.

[Applepie]

49. That's what I heard

I thought he always planned to let them expire.

[Why Syzygy]

73. WRONG!

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes /

If they are expected to "give back", that does not sound like, "keep taking your breaks for two more years".

(Sorry for the dupe, but some people are not reading the thread.)

[Skittles]

93. CORRECT

[ellacott]

107. I responded to this in a previous post

You are wrong

[Jennicut]

26. Guys, the economy is tanking even more then anyone realizes

I watched Fareed Zakaria today on CNN and geez, his roundtable about the economy made it sound like we are in for it. The bailout is not really working and Europe really has no one to bail them out. There are bank collapses everywhere, its only getting worse. Adding tax increases right now is not the best idea but could be okay later on, or just let them expire in two years. Obama needs to do the best thing for the economy right now. The stimulus is really needed, the tax break on the middle class is really needed. We need money being spent in the economy. The tax increases may not be good on the economy at this point.

[Breeze54]

31. The top 1% can AFFORD to pay their fair share for a change!!

Change is what Obama is all about, isn't it?

Then I want to see some on Jan. 21st, 2009.

[Jennicut]

42. Well, we need to see how the ecomomy does first.

Our economy is on the verge of a major collapse, worse then even a few months ago. The house of cards is falling. And putting tax increases on top of that may not be the best idea. Lets see what happens first with the economy. By the way, I voted for "change" too. Change away from the Republicans and Bush and McCain. I am so happy to have a Dem back in the White House (soon) that I practically pissed myself election night. I come from a family of Republicans. My parents are hard core. They think Obama is a socialist, so I see these threads and posts complaining about Obama and just laugh. We could be so depressed right now, what if McLame won? He would do nothing on nothing.

[Why Syzygy]

75. GAWD .. A housefull of ENABLERS.

Let's see what happens with the economy? lol .. It's in the toilet, dear. And the fed has their hand on the handle.

[kristopher]

47. Why don't you make it your diaper.

What a whiner.

[Breeze54]

83. Is that you, Phil Gramm!?!

Did you get lost on the way to FR?

[kristopher]

102. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7919157

[Marsala]

59. No, they can't

At least, not right now. The economy is in dreadful shape. As much as we would like to soak the rich, it would be counterproductive at the moment. Straight deficit spending is the way to go now.

[Breeze54]

82. "soak" the rich? BooHoo! They haven't been paying for 7 years!!

I have no sympathy for them at all. Not when the richest man on the planet,
Warren Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes percentage wise than he does!!

[Why Syzygy]

95. Correct me if I'm mistaken

although I do believe it is correct that the super rich are exactly the ones who *write* the tax codes for the whole lot of us. Read a Ben Franklin quote earlier that when Americans learn that we can vote ourselves money .. darn can't remember the rest.... maybe we will do away with classes.

Point is: The Richest are the ones who write their own rules. OUR rules are merely to facilitate their rules with our labor and assets. It feels so much to me like serfdom. I think I most certainly one in another life. Where, in this plan, is it clear that we are free? Free to make our own rules too? Free to at least make the assertion that our lives have value also, and we expect a fair share, no strings attached.

It's the model that needs changing. Moving money around in it is not going to change the outcome; rich people write their own rules which keeps them rich. This is done at the expense of other planetary citizens who have no power to write their rules for the large areas of their lives. They have very little power to influence the matrix. Our votes are, in theory, set up to give the people a voice. This needs to change. The matrix.

[w4rma]

53. Where is all that money that used to be circulating around the economy going?

Into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy whom need to be taxed enough to force them to quit hoarding it and get that money back into circulation.

[Skwmom]

78. Well raise the taxes on the wealthy and increase the proposed tax cuts to the middle class.

As one economist pointed out, you get a heck of a lot more bang for your buck by giving the middle class a tax break.

[JimWis]

37. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard Obama say he wasn't

going to raise taxes for people making over 250K. I just watched the interview with Axelrod again. I heard words like - "may delay" - "might be considered" - or words to that affect. I hope Obama does as he said he would, but I will wait to see.

[gblady]

60. Obama said.....

over and over in stump speech after stump speech...
that he would let the tax cuts expire....
very plainly, very clearly...

[CreekDog]

65. In case you didn't notice we are trying to avoid a depression, spending like mad

the government during a bad recession needs to be sending money OUT not taking it in.

he can raise taxes when times improve.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. They expire in 2010 so it's really just one year's difference

And as a result Democrats don't have to go on the record as having raised taxes. Clinton had to actually pass legislation in 1993 to get taxes raised and it cost a lot of political capital and was part of the reason he had trouble getting health care reform passed.

[Blue-Jay]

67. Post a few recent Obama quotes that support your OP.

You wouldn't want people to think that you're full of shit, would you?

[SnoopDog]

70. wow thanks blue jay

Watch or read any news today? You wouldn't want people to think you are ignorant, would you?

[Blue-Jay]

80. Still waiting on those quotes from Obama...

I watch and read the news every day, thankyouverymuch. What did HE say that supports your OP?

[SnoopDog]

84. AP article

DU posters sure have changed over the years... ignorance was rare....

.........................

Obama Aide Promotes Job Plan, Warns Automakers
Obama adviser promotes economic aid plan, seeks swift congressional action; automakers warned
By JIM KUHNHENN Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON November 24, 2008 (AP)


President-elect Barack Obama signaled Sunday he will move urgently and aggressively to rescue the plunging economy, demanding swift passage by Congress of a massive two-year spending and tax-cutting recovery program. "We're out with the dithering, we're in with a bang," a top Obama aide said.

Obama's plans, outlined by his transition team on television talk shows, could put aside his campaign pledge to repeal a Bush tax cut for the wealthy. With the downturn in the economy, those tax cuts may remain in place until they are scheduled to die in 2011, said William M. Daley, an economic adviser. "That looks more likely than not," he said.

Obama aides called on lawmakers to pass, by the Jan. 20 inauguration, legislation that meets Obama's two-year goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs. Democratic congressional leaders said they would get to work when Congress convenes Jan. 6.

Though Obama aides declined to discuss a total cost, it probably would far exceed the $175 billion he proposed during the campaign. Some economists and lawmakers have argued for a two-year plan as large as $700 billion, equal to the Wall Street bailout Congress approved last month.
<more>


Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=6319031

[Blue-Jay]

85. I see quotes from unnamed "Obama aides".

Any word from Obama?

[ShadowLiberal]

68. It's politics, what if Obama raises taxes then fails to fix the economic mess, big ammo for the GOP

The republicans are already talking about how Hoover raised taxes (I'm not sure on who) during the depression and how it only made things worse.

If Obama raises taxes on anyone and then things get worse the republicans will use it as a battle cry to claim we can't handle the economy.

Personally I am usually very concerned about balancing the budget and our sky rocketing national debt, but I've read up a bit on economies that got out of the great depression quicker then others.

Japan was one of the quickest nations to get out of the depression, because they had a finance minister who engaged in a bunch of deficit spending to stimulate their economy again. He also helped make Japan's products they sold cost less, and therefore helped improve Japan's exports despite protective tariffs other countries were erecting to try to help their own economies.

Japan was out of the great depression in just a few years thanks to their brilliant finance minister. Unfortunately for their finance minister though, some of the things he did to help his country escape the great depression also helped cause Japan to join the Axis powers in WW2 (namely he spent a bunch of money producing weapons for the military, and the military started to resist him and take over when he tried to reduce military spending down to predepression levels).

[BREMPRO]

74. his economics advisors are telling him that its a bad idea to raise any taxes in a deep recession...

the conventional wisdom anyway, but i think we should question it. I think he's also calculating it would be easier politically to just let the bush tax cuts lapse in 2010. I personally think this is a cop out, but i'm willing to suspend judgment until I hear the arguments.

[Kokonoe]

77. There is no logical or sane reason for doing this..

I trust Obama to put his hand in the black goop of a facade the msm has projected the last decade.
I'm busy trying to fix my leaky head gasket and that damn (VirusRemover2008} virus on my computer.

[stillcool]

81. I don't know..but if ABC said it...

it must be true.

[Zombie2]

87. THANKS... but no thanks....

to any delay!

I was hoping for the kind of strong change that makes waves. We need waves, damnit! :hi:

[Kokonoe]

88. Sorry , I'm too busy to make waves.

Just give President Obama a green light.

He's the president. :shrug:

[Zombie2]

ass, grass, or cash...

nobody rides for free!

[Zombie2]

89. ass, grass, or cash...

nobody rides for free!

[Kokonoe]

90. I can only give you ass,

If you want it.

[Zombie2]

91. Pass

:rofl:

I really do prefer grass and cash.

[Youphemism]

92. Why do you care?

If Obama waits two years to collect those taxes, he loses almost nothing, since most companies will be in the red for the next two years. Conventional wisdom says to spend money and keep taxes low to get out of a recession. By allowing the tax cuts to expire in their own good time, it costs very little, and yet promotes the image of a business friendly environment. No matter what we do, we are going to have to spend our way into a big deficit to get out of this rut, and taxes we'd collect by negating these tax cuts earlier are spit in the ocean compared to it.

On the other hand, why are you so bothered by it?

There are so many truly important issues to worry about, why even bother with this one? -- unless you just plain have it in for the rich, the same way many conservatives don't want their neighbors to be bailed out of mortgages, even though it might keep their own property values from falling.

Enough with the "Hey, you're not being fair in the way you treat *other* people" crap on *both* sides of the coin. We need to dig our way out of this hole and screw anyone who's too worried about doing it in a perfectly balanced way -- because that's impossible. The difference in revenue will be next to nothing over the next two years anyway.

Get over it and get a real issue. There are so many good ones to worry about.

[WinkyDink]

108. Do you not realize that these tax cuts helped make the current problem?

Why do YOU NOT care about re-gaining this money?

[PBS Poll-435]

96. Because Hillary Clinton is back, baybee

Please worry about something that really matters.

[TexasObserver]

98. He's doing it because (1) he wants to quickly pass a middle class tax cut, (2) we're in a recession

and (3) the Bush tax cuts will expire in the next couple of years, anyway.

[unblock]

99. the key problem is the lower rates for gains and dividends

until the tax rates for capital gains and dividends are brought in line with ordinary income, investors and management will always have incentives for shenanigans, not the least of which is that they actually have a tax incentive to liquidate a company! is that nuts or what?!

[FlaGranny]

100. Amazing

that people don't seem to have paid ANY attention to the Obama campaign and now expect him to do everything THEY want by the end of his first week in office. That's January 27, 2009. After that date, I expect we should demand impeachment. :wtf:

[Thrill]

101. I don't buy it. They're trying to calm the markets and people for the holidays

So all they've done is give the impression, they may hold off on it. They want to get the stimulus passed first.

Even Carl Levin said yesterday, he didn't believe that report. Because they have to raise them.

[dbmk]

103. Really?

"There is no logical or sane reason for doing this.."

I saw Krugman say the same thing as the decision you critique, the other day. One reason for doing it is keeping as much money as possible in play in the hands of investors and consumers to keep the wheels at least slightly oiled.

You really think the people behind this that are infinitely smarter than us in regards to this - are doing it just for kicks?

Its ok not to understand it and ask questions. I don't claim to understand it.

But categorically stating it like you do here, is whats wrong with debates here 95% of the time.
Willingness to state certainties about stuff - initiated by smarter people than you - that you know very little about.

[Vinca]

104. Funny. I don't recall seeing the POTUS-elect on the television

telling us he was going to do this. How did I miss it? Don't believe anything unless it comes from O himself. He has said he might let it go until the Bush tax cuts expire if that's what the economy warrants. Given the freaking mess this guy is walking into, we ought to give him some leeway on everything.