Obama Promises to Deliver Clinton’s Middle Class Tax Cut
June 15th, 2008 at 03:31pm Mark Noonan
And if you fall for this, then you’re an exceptionally dense person:
Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into “green energy” and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.
Campaigning in Pennsylvania, a key battleground in the fall campaign, Obama said he would take a much more hands-on approach than would Republican John McCain. He again criticized McCain’s proposal for a temporary halt in the federal gasoline tax. It would “actually do real harm,” Obama said, by reducing revenue for road and bridge construction even as oil companies make record profits.
Speaking to about 200 people in Wayne, a Philadelphia suburb, Obama made no new proposals but emphasized earlier ones in light of rising gas prices, inflation and job losses. They include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.
A President can only do so much, of course, and just how much effort do you think ultra-leftwing extremist Obama, working with a very liberal Democratic Congress, will expend on cutting taxes vis a vis raising taxes and spending? I’m sure that if Obama wins the “middle class tax cut” will make it into the rhetoric for a while, but I’ll also bet that, like Clinton, Obama will find out that, painful as it may be (for you and me, that is), there’s just no room in the budget for a tax cut…this is because we can’t afford it…can’t afford, that is, to leave your own money in your own pocket. And “we” means “government bureaucrats” and not, you know, “me and you”.
Of leftist moonshine and American defeat is what you want, thne Obama is your man - on the other hand, if hard nosed reality and American victory is what you want, then McCain will be your man in 2008.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
18 Comments
1. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
just how much effort do you think ultra-leftwing extremist Obama, working with a very liberal Democratic Congress, will expend on cutting taxes vis a vis raising taxes and spending?
Well, let’s see…it looks like the plan is to cut taxes on the middle class and to let the Bush upper-bracket tax cuts expire (which the Bush administration had to do in order to make its rosy economic predictions, by the way). So you’re against cutting taxes on the middle class, then? Only the top brackets deserve a cut?
Incidentally, the “hard nosed reality” is that supply-side economics (which you seem to be a fan of simply because you’ve been told to be so) doesn’t work. And McCain’s economic plan is simply a fantasy with no connection to reality. (Be sure to click through to Part I of that last story…that is, assuming you’re not too afraid to click the link in the first place.)
Self-contradiction and a sucker for supply-side economics? Enjoy your life as an exceptionally dense person, Noonan. I’m sure you are–ignorance is bliss, after all.
2. Mark Noonan | June 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Tract,
What your link shows is the amazing lengths to which discredited Keynesian economics will go to propagandise against the Laffer Curve.
From your link:
Oh, wow! One of Bush’s advisors? This just proves it!!! Can’t you see - the author of the Factcheck article says that the report demonstrates that the Laffer Curve doesn’t work!!!! Of course, once you go into the details, you’ll find that the report in question prominently states in its conclusions that the variables involved are so large that reasonable arguments can be made against the study conclusions - in other words, some rather smart guys thought about the issue and worked out some interesting data which partially confirmed Laffer’s theory, but which is still entirely open to debate.
The plain facts:
US government revenues in 1978, prior to Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981: $446.5 billion
US government revenues in 1988, six years after Reagan’s tax cuts: $997.2 billion
Growth in revenues: 223%
Q.E.D.
3. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | June 15th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
2. Mark Noonan | June 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
May I ask how much M3 grew during the supply side period that you note? From 1.5 MMMM USD to 3.75 MMMM USD. Any good economist would never stake their reputation of the M3 growth with tax revenue expansion there are more factors in play on M3 than the going tax rates. The M3 situation has become such a harbinger of bad economic policy over the last five years that the bush administration has directed the not to publish the number. but it can still be calculated with relative ease. Right now that number is ~12.8 MMMM USD over 5 MMMM USD of this are the bloat of short term repurchase agreements related to the CDO crisis. That 5 MMMM USD alone. That’s the devil of supply side economics it allows for the printing of debt without the printing of more currency.
How about looking at GDP and interest rates and unemployment rates for the period. Then we can discuss calmly why you should apologize to Lord Keynes.
4. phnx | June 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Windfall profit tax on the oil companies?
A brilliant Jimmy Carter plan that was a miserable failure and led to reduced supply and long lines at the gas pump.
Congress finally repealed that absurd policy. What makes Obama think his will work when its been tried and failed in the past?
5. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Shorter Mark Noonan: “Facts have a liberal bias, and I therefore reject them!”
The plain facts are that the tax cuts you love don’t even pay for themselves, much less increase revenue. Whine about it all you want, but it won’t change the cold hard truth. As noted, when Bush was making his rosy projections about what the economy would look like, he had to assume that his own tax cuts would expire to make the numbers acceptable. In other words, in order to make his plan look good, he had to rescind it.
And you still dutifully avoid any discussion McCain’s utterly incoherent (and blatantly dishonest) financial plans.
6. Rana Quijotesca | June 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Mark-
Actually, the Factcheck article doesn’t say that the Laffer Curve doesn’t work (a wonderful little red herring on your part). In fact, the Laffer Curve is working just as it should–tax rates were at or below the point of peak revenues. Rates were cut; then revenues went down (you know, that whole upside-down parabola thing). That is how the Laffer Curve works… no matter what the Kool-aide salesmen tell you.
Another illustration–the period that you point out–tax revenues were above the point of maximum revenues. Taxes were cut. Then revenues went up.
The problem with Supply-Side Economics isn’t that the theory itself is wrong; it’s that people, like you, Mark, misuse the theory to come to erroneous conclusions.
And one more question: If Bush is the bastion of Economic knowledge you say he is why would he appoint a “discredited Keynesian Economist” (as you accused Mankiw of being by implication) to be the chairman of his CEA?
On to the rest of the post–
The windfall profits tax on oil companies is a retarded idea, period. FDR (the second most overrated President in History, behind Reagan) tried a similar tax during the early years of the Great Depression and just made things worse.
Otherwise, there is no (rational) reason to think that he won’t cut taxes on the middle and lower classes. It fits perfectly in with his populist rhetoric. Also, I rather like his ideas to make corporations submit executive pay raises to a non-binding shareholder vote and his views on increasing the information that corporations have to give to consumers.
He has some good ideas if you just bother to read them…
7. Kahn | June 15th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Tractatus, But the top earning five percent pay 80 percent of the taxes NOW. The lowest earners pay little to nothing NOW.
Under what principle in our Constitution do you think you have the right to take something away from someone and just give it to someone else? Is that equal protection under the law? Really, I know you think it’s “the right thing to do”. But outside socialist teachings, where do you see a legal justification for it? Please, here’s your chance - convince me.
On oil profits. Oil companied are publicly held corporations. PEOPLE own them. I think they make too much. Agreed. But it is their right. Should we tax movie stars for making too much? The last time we put such a tax on the oil companies, the result was disastrous. Want toi lower prices? Allow drilling offshore, in Alaska, and in the Rockies.
Want to change the game? Join me in demanding the reversal of the Kennedy bill restricting wind power. And how about approving some nuclear and hydro-electric projects?
8. Gaijin | June 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
The simple fact of the matter is Obama’s plan pays for itself and puts more money in the pockets of 90% of Americans. If you want to defend record deficits and tax cuts to the wealthest of Americans, be my guest. Something tells me people are getting tired of the “tax and spend liberal” rhetoric when Republicans are responsible for more than 65% of the national debt are are the most irresponsible on that front. When you break down the numbers, it will destroy the Republican’s 10 second soundbites on the economy.
Peace, Gaijin
9. Casper | June 15th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“But the top earning five percent pay 80 percent of the taxes NOW.”
Actually the top five percent pays less than 60 of the taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
10. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Under what principle in our Constitution do you think you have the right to take something away from someone and just give it to someone else?
So you’re against taxation in general, then? That’s the implication of your statement.
11. js | June 15th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
and when the average family gets thier miserable 1000 dollar tax break that pays for rent for 1 month…does it really help them when food prices and gas prices and electric prices and rental costs have increased by 25-40% and minimum wage is still under $6 an hour?
whats making sense here…to charge the wealthy business owners more taxes….so they have less to pay and drop wages…and then to cut capital gains on stocks from exemptions so they can tax us twice again on investments…or do they suppose that lying about the whole thing, like they have for the last 6 election cycles will keep working, and that the average dope out there is a middle incomes turd that they can keep milking for all its worth? like the anti-earmark deal they ran on last election….that never happened…and the health insurance for all tactic….thats been used since WWII ended…
its time we woke up and stood for whats right….these people do not have our best interests at heart….thier lips will say anything that we want to hear if they think it will get us to vote for them….there is not a single democrat that passed a legitimate tax reduction program in all of history….they feign to give back ten cents…and then then go behind thier backs and take another dollar…..
12. Kahn | June 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Tractatus, I was going to write that taxes for the common good - yes. Wealth redistribution - no.
But then JS wrote a neat little diatribe demanding wealth redistribution kind of illustrating my point.
I KNOW you want to take one persons property and give it to someone else “because you think it’s the right thing to do”. I simply ask… based upon what? What principle tells you that the government, under threat of imprisonment should take wealth from one group or person to distribute it to someone else? Is it a legal principle? A religous principle?
To me, it looks like socialism as defined by Marxist theory.
_______________________________
From Merriam-Webster-
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
_______________________________
So at this stage in the Marxist transition control of the government is used to “Redistribute” wealth.
So look - if you guys want to argue Marxist theory then lets do so. But the problem is many of you do not even seem to realize that you ARE arguing Marxist theory. Nor can you explain any basis for your beliefs and theories.
If this is so important to you, if you really FEEL like the poor should be helped, then why do liberals not just pay more taxes? And why do conservatives give more to charities in time and money?
So YOU don’t want to help yourselves. Oh no. You want to force some faceless “fat cat” to give up his or her wealth to do what YOU want. But don’t take a slice of my pie.
Just to be clear on what you’re in fact saying.
13. Kahn | June 16th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Oh and Casper, TOTAL tax burden. See if you can find numbers on it including state taxes. Don’t forget capital gains, income, and property taxes. And remember that even some cities charge income taxes.
But if you invalidate my argument based on the percentage, what difference between 60% and 70%? The wealthy pay for our government. And 70% of our governments money goes to entitlements.
If you’re actually socialist, just admit it so we can have an HONEST argument.
14. Kahn | June 16th, 2008 at 10:23 am
OK, so is the silence here now because you didn’t realize you were socialists, or because you DID?
Maybe your a little afraid that you you were a little too honest? Maybe that when people see what you actually want, they will reject you?
The next post from the left should be a clueless challenge of my position from someone outside the string alomng the lines of “what are you even talking about?” - Just see it coming, thats all.
15. Tractatus | June 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Tractatus, I was going to write that taxes for the common good - yes. Wealth redistribution - no.
At what point does it turn from the former to the latter?
And how do you differentiate between “taxes for the common good” and “taking one person’s property and giving it to somebody else?” Seems that they’re different ways of saying the same thing–collecting taxes, and then using that money to help people. Is it that you don’t want taxes to be used for any sort of social welfare program?
I understand that you’re still, sadly, very vulnerable to a good red scare, what with your ranting about socialism at every turn and insisting that everybody who isn’t on board with upper-bracket tax cuts is a radical socialist (not that you’re paranoid or anything…), but in your hysteria, you’re contradicting yourself with your own words. Do you really not see that? You probably don’t. You’re too busy demanding non-socialists identify themselves as socialists to satisfy your delusions.
what are you even talking about?” - Just see it coming, thats all.
So at least you’re somewhat cognizant of how ridiculous and disjointed your rambles are. That’s a start. Next step: Getting you to release your paranoia.
16. Kahn | June 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Tractatus. Using Caspers numbers, the top 5% of income earners pay 60% of the taxes. And doing my own math by looking at the budget 70% of the budget is entitlements.
So, why should I have to pay for welfare, medicare, medicaid, oil company subsidies, farm subsidies (including freakin’ tobacco for crying out loud)? How do these things benefit the common good? Many in fact can be shown to be counter to the common good.
Obama’s economic plan gives money who are not paying taxes. How is that good for everyone? What is IS good for is BUYING votes. This will end up destroying our country. And yes, it is socialist. By design or by happenstance, it’s socialist.
Be honest about your own positions. You keep needling me about taxes EVER being good. Yes, we need government. But not a wealth redistributing socialist government. Your radical attacks are getting old.
17. tax planning&hellip | June 21st, 2008 at 5:24 am
[…] wealthy, pouring money into ???green energy??? and requiring employers to set up retirement savinhttp://blogsforvictory.com/2008/06/15/obama-promises-to-deliver-clintons-middle-class-tax-cut/Taxes: Tax Planning, Tools and Advice - MSN MoneyMicrosoft&39s tax Preparation site, in association […]
18. fl employers taxes&hellip | June 29th, 2008 at 2:56 am
[…] wealthy, pouring money into ???green energy??? and requiring employers to set up retirement savinhttp://blogsforvictory.com/2008/06/15/obama-promises-to-deliver-clintons-middle-class-tax-cut/State: Lured employers now tax MedicaidMar 25, 2005 … Lured employers now tax Medicaid … Like […]