Ezra Klein said it well: $130 billion for the rich versus $600 billion for working people.

[TheWraith]

He pointed out tonight on Countdown, pouring cold water on Keith's anti-tax-deal fervor, that in exchange for the $130 billion that the rich will get over the next two years by extending the rates, we'll get $150 billion in unemployment extensions, $120 billion in payroll tax deductions for working people--which, as he pointed out, is a strong progressive taxation measure, despite what some people will say--as well as extensions of child tax credits, college tuition credits, earned income credits, etcetera which total up to another $320 billion in the hands of working people who need it.

He also pointed out that while the Republicans think they'll be in a good position to re-fight this battle in two years, the opposite is likely to be true, since the economy will have improved, and deficit reduction will be more important to the public by then, making tax cuts for millionaires unpopular.

In short, far from caving in, the Republicans surrendered a hell of a lot in order to get one thing for their constituency.

[HardWorkingDem]

1. Your last line is something we should all memorize...great point...

Great point....

"In short, far from caving in, the Republicans surrendered a hell of a lot in order to get one thing for their constituency. "

Maybe the admin is crazy like a fox and sees some things most are overlooking.

[lonestarnot]

5. Is that something one does in the hall?

[HardWorkingDem]

11. Whew....tough crowd....nt...

...

[eleny]

2. Odd that Klein explained it so clearly but Obama didn't

Obama chose to get out is verbal club to pound his base.

[BzaDem]

17. Odd that Obama DID explain it so clearly, yet people continue to deny he explained it clearly. n/t

[eleny]

21. Good luck with that

[BzaDem]

22. Thanks!

[eleny]

25. Any time!

[Top Cat]

29. The Potus did what was necessary for the American

People.. The votes are not there

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. This morning it was $300 billion, Ezra.

Which is it?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/can_the_white_house_win_in_201.html

[BzaDem]

18. Ezra clearly says that the 300 billion figure includes an extension of Obama tax cuts for the middle

class from the stimulus. It is EVERYTHING other than the 250k tax rates -- the tax cuts for the rich PLUS the Obama tax credits for the middle class.

[KansasVoter]

4. Do you see any pissed off GOP people today?

[Angry Dragon]

7. Their base is pissed that they gave unemployment

an extension

[KansasVoter]

10. Not 10% as pissed as the Dems. That tells me all I need to know.

[BlueCheese]

15. Greatest progressive legislation ever!

[Duer 157099]

6. So.... $130 billion for a few people vs. $600 billion for millions?

And somehow that's supposed to make us feel better?

[BlueCheese]

12. Exactly.

The Wall Street banker gets a million dollars in tax breaks on this year's bonus.

The elementary school teacher gets a thousand bucks in payroll tax breaks.

Ha! The Dems sure pulled a fast one on the GOP! Suckers.

[wordpix]

37. wow, you win the debate with that one

[Individualist]

48. and the elderly get the shaft.

[lonestarnot]

8. Interesting. Does he explain how he arrived at those numbers?

[dkf]

16. Over 10 years the tax cuts for the rich cost $700 billon while the middle class tax cuts cost $3.2

Trillion.

Those are the numbers as I understand them.

[lonestarnot]

24. Deal was 13 month extension for unemployment and 2 years for bushitler's tax cuts.

May as well give them 10.

[BlueCheese]

9. Sorry, not buying it.

Klein is the biggest apologist out there. If he ever disagrees with Obama on something, you'll know it was a real howler.

First of all, the Republicans don't hate the things "we" got anywhere as much as we hate the tax breaks for the wealthy. Heck, I'll bet they support things like the child tax credit and college tuition credit. Also, the parts we got are much more popular than the parts they got. There's no reason we had to give them their tax breaks in order to get things that are widely popular.

Second, Klein's silly accounting doesn't take into account there are a lot more non-rich than rich. Even using his numbers, that's $130 billion for a small number of rich people, and $600 billion for 300 million other people. Who's getting more out of this? The millionaire or the teacher? It's not even close.

[Toucano]

13. Tax cuts for millionaires ARE UNPOPULAR!!

Only 26% favor them.

[doc03]

14. So now Democrats are buying into the Republican line

no matter what the problem "give em a tax cut". This mess wasn't caused by too much tax it was caused by too little tax, we gave the rich a pile of money and they went out and created a ponzi scheme that brought the world economy down.

[dkf]

20. I've heard members of the Obama team say you don't raise taxes in a recession.

That is actually pretty basic economics.

[doc03]

28. I remember back when Clinton raised those taxes, the

Republicans and all the Wall Street analysts said it would wreck the economy. I still remember the radio stock market guru Bob Brinker going on about the Clinton Administration not having a clue about how the economy works and he predicted it would result in a serious recession or a depression.
When the economy is down you can't raise tax and when the economy is up it will ruin the economy. It seems people on this board find a way to agree with this President even when he violates every Democratic principle there is.

[BzaDem]

33. Clinton was not in a recession. The recession ended in 1991. n/t

[doc03]

38. And every single Republican voted against his tax increases

and said it would destroy the economy. What I wonder is just when do we raise taxes or do we just go into bankruptcy.

[BzaDem]

45. We raise taxes when the economy is growing again at a non-negligable rate, like it was when Clinton

raised taxes.

[doc03]

64. When that time comes again,if it does,you will not get one

single Republican vote just as in 1994. The catfood commission came out with their report last week and everyone on both sides were bitching about the cuts they recommend. Their proposal was to cut the debt by $4 trillion over a ten year period, we just added another $900 billion to that in the following week. So now what do they do instead of changing the COLA on SS they just eliminate it or just outright cut our benefits. Everyone gets a handout from the payroll tax, what the hell do retirees get? A person making $60000 a year gets $1200 and a person making $12000 on SS doesn't even get a COLA for 3 years. As long as people are on the receiving end of a government check screw everyone else.

[StarsInHerHair]

46. that's not hwat the GOP said back then, they claimed Clinton would destroy

the economy and they were wrong. They are always wrong, the Right.

[BzaDem]

49. Again, the recession ended in 1991, and was much less deep in the first place.

We still can't produce enough jobs just to keep up with population growth, let alone actually lowering the unemployment rate. There is a huge difference.

[doc03]

65. The Obama kool aid crowd will find a way to justify

whatever he does won't they? The man has transformed himself into GWB over the last month, two more job giveaways to foreign countries, a federal pay freeze and a Republican wet dream tax deal.

[mitchtv]

30. I heard THAT from mitch McConnel and john Boner

that's prtty much the standard GOP line

[Subdivisions]

31. Obama has said that we are not in a recession. Now what? n/t

[BzaDem]

34. We're in a jobs recession. We just gained 40k last month -- need 150k just to keep up with new

workers entering the labor force.

[doc03]

39. How does this tax giveaway make any jobs other than maybe

a cashier at Walmart? Remember in the last couple weeks he made a trade agreement with India and Korea to export more jobs, another gift to the Republicans.

[BzaDem]

47. It creates consumer demand (or actually prevents over 600 billion dollars of consumer demand from

the poor and middle class alone to be flushed down the toilet).

[doc03]

63. So now we are going for the Republican philosophy

that tax cuts fix everything.

[Hannah Bell]

19. It's $140 billion for the rich ($70 B x 2 years). The payroll tax cuts are not "progressive," it's

a flat 2-pt cut off current payments for every worker, including those in the top 20% of wage earners, who pay the biggest chunk of SS taxes -- because they make the biggest chunk of money. The cut also takes revenue away from the SS program, affecting its actuarial status.

I've heard nothing about this other $320 billion; do you have a link?

On the face of it, it seems to me that "extensions of child tax credits, college tuition credits, earned income credits" would have to do with the Bush tax cuts.

On edit after reading this, it doesn't look like you're reporting it correctly, and the reporting in the article is incoherent. Impossible to tell who gets what, & the numbers reported are different from what's already been reported.


"Democrats look likely to get a 13-month extension of both unemployment insurance and many of the tax breaks built into the stimulus (Making Work Pay, the bump in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, the business tax breaks and so on). That totals about $180 billion over two years.

(Earlier reported that payroll cut for 1 year would be $120 B, so that leaves $60 B for other extensions of the so-called 'middle-class' tax cuts, which are not specific to the middle class, rich people can take them as well.)

So if the White House gets the deal that the early reports suggest are close -- and that they seem to think they'll be able to get -- this is a two-year stimulus package that approaches $300 billion.

(OK, the total package = $300 B? No, apparently not, because read what follows --)

Update: Just to be clear, that's $300 billion for tax cuts for income over $250,000, and tax extenders.

(So the rich get $300 B in tax cuts & extenders? Or they get the earlier reported $140 B & someone else gets "extenders"? You can't tell who gets what).

Add in the rest of the tax cuts -- which I left out because they're already at consensus -- and it's closer to $750 billion. So the $300 billion is the marginal cost over the tax cuts for income under $250,000.

(Huh? What other tax cuts? WTF is this word soup about? Why does Ezra Klein get paid so much, I can write more clearly than he does.)

[Subdivisions]

23. Since when did the 'bush tax cuts' include payroll tax deductions, child tax credit,

college tuition credits, earned income credits, etcetera?

Those other cuts were Obama tax cuts, not the bush tax cuts we've been discussing.

Why is he throwing in tax cuts that weren't part of the extensions?

[Statistical]

42. What planet have you been living on.

payroll tax reduction is new

increased child tax credit ($1000 vs $600) - bush tax cut
elimination of marriage penalty - bush tax cut
creation of 10% bracket vs 15% - bush tax cut
expanded college tuition credit - bush tax cut
expanded earned income credit - bush tax cut

There has only been (until now) a single tax cut under Obama. The $400 per person "making work pay credit". That's it. Now (once signed) there will be a 2% payroll reduction (reduction in SS contribution).

Everything else is part of the so called "bush tax cuts" which were signed in 2001 & 2003.
You can hate Bush but don't pretend Obama deserves credit for legislation passed in 2001 & 2003.

[Subdivisions]

44. Thanks for that clarification. I overlooked the 2003

tax cuts. I'll go look them up now.

Thanks again.

[Rex]

26. That might be all true...but ONCE AGAIN the Repukes win in a fight

they should have lost. ONCE AGAIN a small group of radicals run the agenda in Washington DC.

[Subdivisions]

27. No it isn't true... All those other tax cuts Klein is bundling in with the 'bush tax cuts'

were not part of the extensions being discussed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

[nashville_brook]

32. Fail. Big fail. Epic fail.

:rofl:

[wordpix]

35. I respect Ezra but even he can't predict what will happen in 2 yrs.

"...since the economy will have improved..." Really? What about the impact of never ending BushCo wars for (so far) 10 yrs., into the undetermined future? What about the $13 TRILLION debt? :shrug: What about 9.8% unemployment? What about outsourcing and possibly those jobs not coming back? What about more disasters like BP and Katrina, and the mortgage/foreclosure mess that keeps on coming? And I would mention improving education and the environment and parks, but...

I would like to think things will improve but digging ourselves out of this ditch is no rosy picture.

[Major Hogwash]

36. If people would only put a lil' trust in Obama instead of rushing to judgment, they would be better

off.
Look at all of the hairpulling that went on at this forum for the last 2 days.

People were calling for Obama's head, and hadn't even read the details of the deal yet!!

[wordpix]

41. I trusted O, sent him my hard earned $ but now he's asking for $9 billion for the nuke corps

Toshiba, GE, Westinghouse, O wants $9 billion for all. How much more of this can we take?! I'm sick of it.

www.nirs.org URGENT!

DOE YET AGAIN SEEKING $9 BILLION FOR NEW REACTOR LOANS

FOR THE LAST TIME THIS YEAR--TELL CONGRESS: NO TAXPAYER BAILOUTS FOR GIANT NUCLEAR CORPORATIONS!

December 7, 2010

Dear Friends,

This morning we learned that the Obama Administration is asking Congress, as one of its last acts during this lame duck session, to sneak in $9 Billion more for taxpayer loans for new nuclear reactor construction as part of the upcoming "Continuing Resolution" to keep the government funded.

This is at least the fourth attempt this year to increase the money available for new reactor "loan guarantees" (actually, these would be loans from the government's Federal Financing Bank)--despite the fact that the Department of Energy has not been able to spend the money it currently has available for such loans--it still has $10.2 Billion in unspent money available!

This money would go to some of the world's largest corporations; companies like Electricite de France, Toshiba directly, Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba), General Electric, and so on. When will Congress learn that taxpayers don't want to subsidize giant corporations any longer, especially when they want to build dirty and dangerous new nuclear reactors in our communities!

With your help, we beat back the first three attempts to increase funding for this program. This one will be the hardest to beat yet, since the Administration's request is wrapped up in a larger package. So we need the loudest outcry possible: Please send a letter to your Senators and Representative now.

We also encourage you to reinforce your letter and call your Congressmembers. Their direct phone numbers will show up when you send your letter. Tell them simply: we won't accept any more taxpayer bailouts for dirty nuclear power.

If you're on Facebook, Twitter or other networking sites, please help us spread the word. Just click on the icons on the top right of the action page to share this action with your friends. Suggested tag line: Tell Congress: No more taxpayer loans for giant nuclear corporations (or use a tag line of your own!). You could also e-mail your friends with this action page link: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4923

In other news, the Obama Administration is also promoting nuclear power today at something called the "Third Way" summit on a nuclear future. DOE Secretary Steven Chu and White House energy chief Carol Browner both have been touting nuclear power this morning to this self-appointed group led by outgoing Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) and Delaware Democrat Tom Carper. Among other travesties, Chu reportedly supported the idea of including nuclear power as part of a "Clean Energy Standard" that would replace a "Renewable Energy Standard" focused only on genuinely clean energy sources. Here is an early report from this summit. This notion that nuclear power is somehow "clean" is something we will have to fight hard next Congress.

In response to this "summit," Marc Cooper of the Vermont Law School prepared a new fact sheet titled: Why the Nuclear Power Industry is Dead in the Water Today in the U.S. You'll find some useful information here, and we encourage you to forward it to your local media, especially anyone who may be covering this "Third Way" summit.

After you've sent your letter to your Congressmembers, we ask you to please support NIRS and our Holiday fundraising drive. We sometimes imagine what could happen if each person who took a NIRS action this year contributed just $20. That would pay our entire annual budget! And instead of spending foundation grants on rent and other bills, think how we could spend those funds expanding our outreach and building our movement, mounting more legal challenges to the nuclear industry; supporting more direct actions....we can dream, can't we? We hope you'll help us move our dreams a little closer to reality with your contribution of any size now.

A couple of notes: During our last action (a letter to Obama), some people reported problems sending their letters. It seems as if one of the servers used became overloaded and some people couldn't get their letters through. The tech people have been working on this issue. If you have any problems doing this action, please try again in a short time, and let us know by sending an e-mail to [e-mail]. But waiting a few minutes and trying again usually works.

Finally, to our many friends outside the U.S.: you will need a U.S. address to participate in this action. U.S. Congressmembers reject mail coming from addresses outside their states or districts.

Thank you for all you do, thank you for writing your Congressmembers now and helping us spread the word, and have a wonderful Holiday season.

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[e-mail]
www.nirs.org

P.S. if you're on Facebook, don't forget to "Like" NIRS here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nuclear-Information-and-Resource-Service/26490791479

[MrMickeysMom]

40. Every time you use a "payroll tax deduction".. you loose

I don't call taking money out of payroll deductions towards social security (a trust fund that shouldn't BY LAW even be counted in the operating budget) a progressive measure and disagreed when I heard Ezra Klein's comment.

I call it more opportunity to do what the Republicans (graciously helped by the Democrats since 1981) have always tried to do since the time of Greenspan/Reagan... Gutting the Social Security Trust Fund.

[Statistical]

43. Not true. The 2% is replaced by funds from general fund.

That is why it contributes to the deficit. If the 2% wasn't replaced one could cut SS contribution to 0% and it wouldn't "cost" $1 in terms of deficit score.

This meme has been debunked a dozen times.

The legislation calls for general fund paying the 2% that employees won't. That will end up costing $120B hence that $120B becomes part of the budget and will need to be paid for by deficit spending.
The legislation will have absolutely no effect on long term stability of SS.

[MrMickeysMom]

54. Okay, indulge this question...

I want to make sure I understand, as I have not read the bill's language. I also don't know the meme to which you refer.

Do you mean that 2% of the payroll tax (for old age surviver's insurance, where the SS trust fund assets I was talking about are) would be taken out of the general fund? This sounds like another attempt at a reversal of what had happened when the SS surplus was touched to finance tax cuts of the rich and corporations 30 yrs ago.

The last I knew, obligations to the SS trust fund should be seen as primarily assets of this trust fund. The retirees have to be paid in cash. But the undisbursed balances have been gutted. In fact, since the "revenue enhancement of 1983, this tax system has been churned over and over. It should be left alone. It can be enhanced by replacing all the money gutted out of it. In fact, it got so ugly in the 80's, there was legislation to repeal the payroll tax (ignored) resulted in making it illegal for Congress and the president to include SS funds in their budget calculation. Why can't this law be followed? I just wrote my congressman about this (no reply).

If you mean the legislation will have absolutely no effect on long term stability of social security, I suppose the problem of returning SS to a pay as you go LOCK BOX will still be there and we'll still be using this argument while the both houses continue to ignore a 1990 law.

[Statistical]

55. Well there hasn't been a lock box ever so that point is moot.

The legislation neither makes a lock box (which is a silly idea for other reasons) harder or easier to implement.

Simply put the $120B won't be paid into SS trust fund via payroll taxes. $120B will be paid into SS trust fund via the general fund. net-net the effect on SS viability is absolutely $0.00.

[MrMickeysMom]

62. Yes, I know there hasn't been a lock box

which is ANYTHING but a silly idea.

You have clarified something for me. What you advocate is NOT progressive in my book. It is not worthy of any deal that involves the continued maldistribution of the middle classes' money to the UPPER, UPPER tier class. In fact, it sounds like more borrow and spend ideas that mainly come from the right dangled like a $120B rotten carrot. Simply put... NONE OF THIS justifies giving tax cuts to the rich. You seem to have made an awful lot of tracks on these boards trying to "explain" this blunder that is bound to make the wrong people go on paying for. I wonder where the jobs went to help do that? Indentured servitude will have to rule that decision.

Bad move, Mr. President.

Hope he enjoyed that Christmas party last evening. Were any colleagues at the Chicago School of Economics in attendance?

edit: inserts

[MadHound]

50. AH HAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl:

These rationalizations are getting more convoluted, more amusing every time they trot one out.

[renate]

51. well, but, there are a lot fewer rich people than there are working people

So an apples-to-apples comparison isn't really correct.

I'm still an Obama supporter (although I am so so so disappointed when I think about what could have been), but it's not like the rich got a pittance. The top 1% or whoever ends up getting that $130 billion is still getting, proportionately, a whole lot more than working people.

[StarsInHerHair]

52. we REALLY need to totally get out of Iraq and Afghanistan-damn what the

chicken hawks squawk, we need to quickly, massively reduce military bloat and get rid of many of those 800 over seas bases we have now. Before we completely implode. I think we should withdraw with no announcements or explainations, that would create an environment of uncertainty in any enemies we have. A state-of-the-art all-borders security system should be put into place, THERE is where we would catch them, as well as international detective/police tracking of obvious groups, and I don't mean 'raging grannies 4 peace'-no, the real groups. Check on the Southern Poverty Law Center, or whatever its called.

[democracy1st]

53. No one including the middle class needs a tax cut,what America needs is jobs!

[Rex]

56. THAT IS THE POINT!

I wish would be made around here more often! :thumbsup:

[JamesA1102]

57. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts nt

[Catherina]

58. Well hell, by that logic, those Republicans are great, caring people! n/t

[LeFleur1]

60. Who Are we Borrowing the Money From To Pay For This?

China? Saudi Arabia? Who is picking up the tab for this wildness? When you put stuff on a credit card you have to pay for it. We are going to borrow money to fund this. It's sick. Some day we will have to pay. It might as well start now. The Dems should never have allowed this to be bundled with the unemployment extension. Maybe they can fix it before January 1st.

[laughingliberal]

59. And how much in SS cuts? That's where this 'deal' leads in 2011. nt

[lamp_shade]

61. We will soon get to see how Boehner "leads". I'll be watching. You betcha. K&R

[GOTV]

66. Those are almost all tax cuts. The GOP LIKES tax cuts. Therefore this is a win-win for the GOP.