Nice little bit of mental masturbation there, but as long as taxes get raised on anybody, that bill won't be passing in the House any time soon. That includes Obama's "jobs bill," also.

You know what? Fuck it. I say we just leave the taxes alone and print the money. Just print it. Buy the bridges and the power lines and the rural highways with money that the Treasury prints. No one has to pay any more taxes than they already do.

The inflationary hit can't be that bad. Hell, they printed a couple trillion to pay for the damned banks. How about printing a couple trillion to pay for infrastructure projects and hiring workers?

preaching to the choir, buddy ;)

Pshaw, that kind of logic has NO PLACE in American politics.

Everyone knows that taxes only function to discourage a given behavior.

Tax tobacco, people smoke less.

Tax alcohol, people drink less.

If you tax wealth, it will only discourage people from becoming rich.

“Actually hiring people to build and repair things like roads, bridges, schools, drinking and waste water pipes, and other stuff we need” would require the President to talk about, and find, “Shovel ready jobs”… That ain’t going to happen. Ever again.

“I can assure you that if you give me a couple thousand dollars in extra take-home pay, I'm damn well spending it... on car repairs, home maintenance, a new pair of comfy shoes, maybe a nice meal out, and all of the other goods and services that the wealthy people sell.” Make all the assurances you like, but reality tells a different story. Those couple thousand extra dollars would be overwhelmingly used to pay down personal debt that’s already been run up.

Let me let you in on the secret… Obama has no desire to see this bill pass. Its only purpose is to set him up to run against a “do nothing” congress.

Obama has night terrors about it actually passing because if it passed, it would fail, just like his last stimulus packages and quantitative easing schemes, and then he’d have to defend it, its cost and its lack of results. He’s trying to stick congress with the economy by setting himself up to be able to say “if they would have given me what I demanded everything would be better”. If they give him what he says he wants, he’ll get stuck with the economy and an even more massive deficit, he’ll have to defend his incompetence in handling the economy (having been given all that he asked for) and he’ll be royally screwed.

That's exactly how we made it out of the last depression (well, that and government spending).

You know who agrees with you? Warren Buffet. And Bill Gates Sr. And a bunch of other rich people.

Here's the funny thing: the rich actually make more money in a world that taxes them higher, as long as it helps the middle class spend more and create a larger economy. It's true: look it up.

@7

Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates have most of their earning long behind them. Propose a tax on wealth, instead of income, and see how supportive they are...

@YGBKM "but reality tells a different story" Um, did you bother to check with reality first? "personal debt that’s already been run up" This. Our personal saving rate shot up with the recession. Stop making shit up.

it isn't about what makes economic sense at all. it is about the best deal that agents (congress the president) can get for their clients (the super rich).

@9
Pay down debt, save, same difference. Neither are simulative.

@8 That is exactly what Buffet proposes. Please stop making shit up.

I guarantee you, if *I* suddenly got $2000, Bank of America would *still* be happy...because the money would go toward their credit card.

@11 Your claim was that people's debt went up during the recession, and any money would go toward paying off that debt. I've proven the opposite - their savings went up, not their debt.

On what basis do you claim people would save even more?

Obama passed the largest tax cuts in history, and we still have high unemployment.

Anyone who thinks cutting taxes will lead to jobs needs to provide an explanation for that.

@12
“I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains.” – Warren Buffet

He is proposing a raise to taxes on income. Not wealth (as I suggested). There is a HUGE difference. His income is insignificant compared to his wealth.

Income-
noun
1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.
2. something that comes in as an addition or increase, especially by chance.

Wealth-
noun
1. a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
2. an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
3. Economics: a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value. b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
4. rich or valuable contents or produce: the wealth of the soil.
5. the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.

@14
On what basis do you claim they would not save more?

@16 Sorry, I thought you were talking about our low capital gains tax and dividends - the money you make off of wealth.

I don't think Goldy was proposing a wealth tax. Are you?

@14 I'm just calling you out for making shit up to be contradictory. You've even contradicted yourself on this topic. If you're admitting you really have no basis for this claim, I'll continue the discussion.

(that @14 should be @17)

I don't see how paying down debt or increasing savings necessarily amounts to stable or reduced spending. Indeed, when I pay credit cards off, I have more income that I can spend without resorting to credit, and more credit that I can spend before I start to worry about the debt burden.

Savings are a little more complicated than that, but it still seems to me that when you have savings, you feel less guilt about, and thus more empowered by, the idea of spending some of your income on pleasures (or on more luxurious versions of your needs).

@18
No he wasn't. He's using Buffet's support to argue for higher income taxes. (Something realtively meaningless to someone who has already made most of thier income).

Current trends (including the one you cited) indicate that the middle class is not in a spending mood, and I don't believe that sending them a check for $1,000 will change that.

@19
You had it right @18

@6: obama has no ILLUSIONS that this bill will pass. if it did, it would just alleviate the pain, like the previous stimulus did. it can't fix the problem.

this GOP congress are politicking assholes first and only, and america sure as fuck needs to wake up and see it.

A dollar of tax cuts is associated with less than a dollar of GDP growth while a dollar in government spending is associated with more than a dollar of GDP growth...You don't have to be an economist to figure out which one is better in terms of encouraging growth. Now's the time to take on projects the private sector can't or won't do. If FDR could pass an executive order interning hundreds of thousands of Americans why can't Obama help us out of this mess?...he's such a charlatan. Keep hoping for that change everyone who voted for him...I guess I will just keep not voting...because I can't bring myself to vote against my own interests.

Same exact logic as trickle down, we know it doesn't work by giving one group and advantage, especially when we need job growth.

You're spot-on, Goldy.

Another way to look at the same dynamic is to acknowledge that economic activity creates wealth, but wealth does not create economic activity. Wealth just sits there, doing pretty much nothing, earning a few percent maybe. It's a complete canard to call the rich job creators. They may own companies that employ people, but accumulated wealth is a dead end for money, almost by definition. ("Can't have your cake and eat it, too.")

Only when money changes hands for products and services can it generate significant economic activity, and usually with a multiplier effect. That is, one dollar spent at the store might represent three or more dollars in salaries, materials, profits and services as it rattles around the economy before it ends up in the static hands of the wealthy.

Taxing the wealthy to pay for government goods and services is stimulative, as they're not spending any significant portion of their money otherwise. Taxing the poor and middle class only cools the economy, as it pulls money out of the hands of those who are already spending all of their discretionary income in the somewhat more efficient private economy. Military spending is much less stimulative of the domestic economy than civilian spending, as it's going partially into a closed economy and partially overseas.

Income tax isn't the most efficient way to do this, either. A progressive personal property tax on accumulated wealth would be far superior. Plus, you could use it to replace the estate tax altogether ("death taxes! death taxes!") without losing the recirculatory mechanism it provides.

You want to see rich people really freak the fuck out, start talking personal property taxes.

A progressive tax in Seattle would essentially destroy ALL homeless and low income housing projects, especially if it's enacted on property.

*yawn* bitch bitch bitch all you want about the screwed up system but what are YOU going to do about it? Blog furiously and vote? Guess what, that ISN'T working!!

@29 So what are YOUR credentials? The ability to post comments?