Obama Administration Weighs More Tax Cuts to Spur Economy

[Better Believe It]

Tax Cuts Weighed to Spur Economy
By DEBORAH SOLOMON and JONATHAN WEISMAN
September 1, 2010

The Obama administration is considering a range of new measures to boost economic growth, including tax cuts and a new nationwide infrastructure program, according to people familiar with the discussions.

On the list of possible actions: additional tax cuts for small businesses beyond those included in a $30 billion small-business lending bill before the Senate. It's not clear what those tax breaks would target or how much they might cost in lost revenue to the government.

Also in the mix: a possible payroll tax cut for businesses and individuals, as well as other business tax breaks, according to people familiar with the discussions. Currently, income taxes are scheduled to rise with the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year.

The White House is struggling with whether to propose ideas that would appeal to Republicans, and thus get support on Capitol Hill—such as tax cuts—or whether to promote ideas that officials believe could have more economic impact but might hit political resistance, such as more aid for states and more infrastructure funding.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Read the full article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575464012356644550.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

[bluestateguy]

1. I hope Bob Reich's taxcut idea is on the list

nt

[Geoff R. Casavant]

12. I'm in favor of it too.

I even thought of the same thing myself a few years back. But it will never be called the Casavant solution because I was too lazy to write about it.

[asdjrocky]

2. Tax cuts fix everything.

Where have I heard that before?

[closeupready]

3. Way to go. MOre tax cuts for the rich, new taxes for the unemployed in the form of mandatory health

insurance. :eyes: :mad:

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Did you even at least SCAN IT?

[budkin]

4. A Payroll tax cut would really help the middle class

[Winterblues]

8. And then Social Security would have to be cut for sure

Hell why not just eliminate all payroll taxes and Social Security and Medicare as well..It would give everyone far more money to spend and no entitlements to worry about adding to the Deficits. Republican wet dream if you ask me..

[Geoff R. Casavant]

13. Not necessarily.

For example, Robert Reich's proposal is to eliminate payroll taxes on the first $20k of wages, then make up the shortfall by increasing the wage cap accordingly.

[budkin]

33. I wasn't referring to social security... just reducing the portion taken for income taxes

I really think it would benefit the middle class and get money out into the system very quickly. Plus it wouldn't allow the rich to get richer because many of them aren't collecting a paycheck. And even if they were, there should obviously be a limit to the cut.

[Hannah Bell]

42. bottom 50% of the population pays little or no income tax.

most is paid by the top 20%. because they get 60% of all income.

they need to pay more.

[Vincardog]

5. What is the marginal tax rate on ZERO income? PFFT on tax cuts. I need an income

[Fumesucker]

23. + a whole bunch..

[pscot]

6. Teh stupid

It burns!

[pscot]

7. Teh stupid

It burns!

[AndyA]

9. Have they done away with taxes on 401K early withdrawals?

I had read somewhere that it was being considered, but I think they should do away with that completely. Chances are, anyone raiding their savings at this point is to pay bills.

[INdemo]

10. It could be that we are being set up for an announcement that the Bush tax cuts will be extended???

By now the corporate bosses have dangled all the right strings and Obama is responding.

[Poboy]

29. Your suspicion is mine as well.

we are being set up for an announcement that the Bush tax cuts will be extended


Thats how these things go. We get double crossed and back stabbed.

[Kat45]

11. Tax cuts are useless if you don't have an income.

Jobs are what is needed.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

14. But . . .

. . . tax cuts for those with jobs means they have more money to spend, which increases demand for goods and services, which means the people providing the goods and services have to hire more workers, which ideally means more jobs.

[Kat45]

17. I realize that and have no problem with tax cuts for the non-rich, but

since there are at least 10 percent unemployed, I would like to see an emphasis on creating jobs as well. A modern day WPA would be nice. I believe full employment should be a goal of this administration. If there ain't new jobs, there will be fewer votes for the Democrats come November--and if the republicans get a majority anywhere, we are screwed as a nation.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

21. I think a new WPA would be great too.

[Better Believe It]

22. President Obama would have to lift President Reagan's Executive Order Prohibiting WPA type jobs

Excerpts from two articles by Alec MacGillis -

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009 and
Monday, November 9, 2009

Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job? .... aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

Instead Obama's team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced. If you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, why not do it with conviction? Engaging in more forthright job creation could invite some political pitfalls (such as those constant accusations of socialism), but is double-digit unemployment any less a political risk?

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

As for direct job creation: there's a real nervousness about setting up anything that looks like a WPA-style jobs program. It's that reluctance that my piece is calling into question -- after all, is it really more politically damaging to be seen as doing a jobs program than to be facing double-digit unemployment?

.... there is just a real allergic feeling in the White House and Congress toward this approach, a worry that it smacks of socialism. Keynesianism has experienced a rebirth, but there's still enough Reaganism in the air that this as seen as a step too far.

.... we had direct job creation programs in place throughout the '70s, as my article recounts. It was called CETA, and it ramped up under Nixon in '73-'74 recession. Reagan ended the program, and implemented a new federal restriction against federal jobs programs, with exception for summer youth programs and national emergencies.

The Labor Department does have various job training programs in place, such as Job Corps. But the federal government is prohibited against doing direct jobs-program style hiring a ban that Reagan put in place and that the Democrats so far have balked at trying to lift.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601900.html?sid=ST2009110604712

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/06/DI2009110603214.html

[Kat45]

26. Son of a bitch. I never knew that fuckhead Reagan did that!

WTF was his justification for that one? If it was an executive order, couldn't Obama, the current chief executive, lift that order himself, without any involvement of Congress? I never knew about this fucking Reagan deed. My blood is boiling; this is really pissing me off.

[maryf]

35. copy that nt.

[northernlights]

38. um...as I recall, Candidate Obama admired Reagan

maybe that wasn't just a tactic to make Bill crazy. Maybe Candidate Obama was just being straight and honest.

[Better Believe It]

43. Yes. Obama can lift Reagan's order and issue a new executive order allowing WPA type jobs

[HughBeaumont]

15. Obama is the shittiest president that ever existed.

There aren't going to be any extensions on the wealthy's tax cuts. It makes no political sense to do so and it isn't going to hurt Democrats to let the expirations happen without interference. The Republicans baked this expiration into their own cuts. They have no one to blame but themselves.

[HughBeaumont]

20. Oh, and for the alerters, the head of that post is sarcasm.

I typed whatever recurring "theme" I'm seeing . . .

[Ramulux]

16. They want to lose this election

This is it. Its over. Obama has given up on doing anything to energize his base and seems to be actively attempting to piss us off so we stay home.

Really? Tax cuts? Are you fucking serious? Do you have any idea what you are doing? This is mind boggling, I expected it to be a given that Obama would come out in the last 2 months and pander to the progressives to get us to come out but he seems to think it is a better strategy to continue to propose republican ideas and then sit back and act bewildered when your base freaks out and calls you a dumb-ass. Why is he doing this? It makes me want to cry. He cant honestly think this is a smart move politically, he just cant. Its painful to watch this administration do shit like this this.

[Better Believe It]

19. Well, you have to appeal to Republicans and can't try to fight any resistance to real job proposals

"The White House is struggling with whether to propose ideas that would appeal to Republicans, and thus get support on Capitol Hill—such as tax cuts—or whether to promote ideas that officials believe could have more economic impact but might hit political resistance, such as more aid for states and more infrastructure funding."

[bluethruandthru]

24. That sentence pretty much says it all. n/t

[Robbins]

18. Tax Cuts

As long as these as for working class and not the rich it can work.They should dare Republicans to fillbuster tax cuts for small
Businesses and help for 95 percent of people.

[bobbolink]

25. Too bad they couldn't bring themselves to "weigh" more stimulus for poor folk.

Yet, they can sure cut food stamps!

:nuke:

Gee, you all must LOVE us....

.........................................to death...........

[laughingliberal]

27. Yes, food stamps have been shown to have one of the most stimulative effects on the economy of any

way we spend money. Cutting food stamps is a bad idea both morally and economically.

[bobbolink]

39. For every dollar of federal money spent on food stamps, $1.76 is returned to the economy!

Yet, the wise ones have cut food stamps.

:nuke:

[maryf]

36. Gee, you all must LOVE us.... to death

+++++ 1 to the millionth, good line (I'd change it to the ptb for the bumper sticker...but that's me...):hi:

[NuttyFluffers]

30. idiotic. people need income, not a cut on expenses.

consumer economy is driven by consumers, and consumers need jobs to have an income. very easy math.

[dotymed]

31. How about this?

OUR government starts some green technology manufacturing. WE hire millions of Americans. As these industries become profitable and reduce alternative prices (because of the availability), then OUR government sells them to the workers at fair prices, getting the same federal, state and local incentives that corporations get to locate in most areas.
Of course, the jobs would be Unionized and therefore pay good wages and benefits.
We could produce the equipment needed to retrofit public and private buildings which would result in great energy savings for them and the environment.
The buyers of this technology would get tax breaks, enabling them to purchase the retrofits.
WE could train (and where there is a demand new locals would open) members of the Carpenters Union, Labor Union...etc, how to install and maintain the equipment.
By doing this,WE could employ millions,eventually sell the factories to the employees (employee owned businesses are much more efficient), WE could be investing in real peoples futures, and profiting at the same time.
We could do the same with other infrastructure necessities, just like the other industrialized nations do and have done.
High speed internet(just one example, our infrastructure is in 3rd world condition). Train and employ the unemployed to install it and eventually sell it to a communications company(ies)or encourage the employees to buy the company, at a PROFIT at a Profit to OUR government.
Hell, this won't even outlaw guns....

These are the types of solutions that I believe, Van Jones had in mind, before he was Bushwhacked by the professional right-ards (sorry no disrespect intended for very special people,"Gods people."
These same idiots will probably scream "Socialism", so what? OUR government(?) will be employing, profiting and helping the people who need help by allowing them to be productive at a living wage with benefits.
Call it quayle-fucking, it doesn't matter.
If "they" want to be correct, they should call it "the right thing to do."
This will NOT work on a private basis. those short-sighted idiots would have this "outsourced" to %3.00 a day slave style countries ...

If WE can spend billion$ invading, occupying and alienating strangers, with no hope of an economic return or social benefit, these America building investments should be a "no-brainer."

[MadHound]

32. Tax cuts are the least effective way to stimulate an economy,

Why do we continue to buy into them as the cure all for our economic problems?

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

34. tax-cuts tax-cuts tax-cuts ... is that all they know how to to in Washington?

When our Freeways fall down and turn into gravel, will they then stop with the tax-cuts?

[maryf]

37. Tax cuts??? Tax the rich instead!

Tax the stock transactions .01% and allow no write offs for one idea I've heard...
K&R

[Amonester]

40. oh no. can't be.

party contributions oblige, and all... :banghead:

[county worker]

41. Here is something I don't get.

I'm working, I may get a tax cut by paying less payroll tax. That means that even though I am better off then those unemployed, I will be that much more better off.

I would much rather they gave a payroll tax cut to employers that hire an unemployed person and give the tax cut to the newly hired employed person for a period of time to help get them back on their feet.

Don't give me a tax cut get a WPA type jobs bill passed!