Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Obama Slams GOP Over Jobs Bill, Endorses Tax Cuts

by Da King on August 31, 2010

in Democrats,economics,GOP,jobs,taxes,Uncategorized,White House administration

Following a meeting with his White House economic team, President Obama gave an address on the economy yesterday. Here's a short summary from MarketWatch:

Congress should act quickly to pass a jobs bill as “too many” Americans are continuing to look for work, President Barack Obama said Monday. “Holding this bill hostage is directly detrimental to our economic growth,” Obama said at the White House about the bill, which expands credit to businesses and cuts certain taxes. Obama added that his economic team is looking at measures including extending middle-class tax cuts and redoubling investments in clean energy as ways of spurring growth and hiring.

Obama's also talked about the jobs bill ten days ago. The bill in question is the Small Business Jobs And Credit Act, which has passed the House, but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans, just as Obama said. Usually when Obama talks about GOP obstruction, it's a partisan tactic that means nothing more than the GOP disagrees with the President. That is not the case this time. I can find no legitimate reason for the Republicans to oppose this bill. The $30 billion in loans to small businesses will be paid for, by small businesses repaying the loans. There are tax cuts for businesses included in the jobs bill. The last I heard, the GOP was supposed to favor tax cuts as a way to stimulate business and the economy (and it's good to finally hear Democrats agree, even though it flies directly in the face of the Dems rhetoric over the last decade).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell complained that the Democrats were not allowing Republicans to put forth amendments to the bill. The only problem there is, it's not true. Republican amendments have been put forth, and a few were accepted, as you can see at the previous link. Other Republicans argued that this was just more spending in the Dems avalanche of spending. While I agree with the GOP about the irresponsibility of Obama's avalanche of deficit spending, what part of "paid for" don't they understand ? The GOP's objections look like little more than election year stalling, putting the people second to their dreams of victory in the fall. This is a bill the GOP would normally endorse. A pox on them.

If I have any criticism of Obama and the Democrats here, it would be…what took you so long ? Small business creates 60-70% of the jobs in this country. Meaningful assistance like this should have been offered much sooner.

I'm also wondering how the Democrats are going to run against Bush this fall when, inch by inch, they continue to endorse his economic policies, particularly regarding tax cuts. There were tax cuts in Obama's stimulus package. There were tax cuts in a jobs bill the Democrats passed earlier this year, Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and now the Dems want more tax cuts for business. The Democrats are gradually destroying their own rhetoric about tax cuts not helping the economy. We always knew that was phony baloney. These actions of the Democrats are a de facto admission that they've been full of it all along.

The last remaining bastion of phony Dem tax rhetoric involves the so-called "tax cuts for the rich." The President and a majority of the Democrats in Congress still adhere to the notion of "soak the rich," and they still pretend that won't harm the economy. They are still wrong, and even the liberal New York Times is beginning to point it out, albeit unintentionally. In an article called 'Wealthy Reduce Buying In A Blow To The Recovery,' the Times notes the following:

Especially at this stage of a recovery, businesses and economists want to see people of all incomes spending more, because the demand for goods and services would in turn encourage companies to hire workers. The American consumer accounts for an estimated 60 percent of the country’s economic activity.

But the Top 5 percent in income earners — those households earning $210,000 or more — account for about one-third of consumer outlays, including spending on goods and services, interest payments on consumer debt and cash gifts, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by Moody’s Analytics. That means the purchasing decisions of the rich have an outsize effect on economic data.

When you tax more of anything, you get less of it. The class warfare strategy of the Democrats, who have big tax hikes in mind for the wealthy starting in 2011, will harm the economy. If they increase taxes on the wealthy, it will have a large negative effect on consumer spending. The wealthy will spend and invest less. There are no two ways about it, and when you hear the Dems say anything different, they are lying. While 60-70% of our jobs come from small business, 30-40% of them do not. We should be creating conditions for ALL companies to be hiring right now, not just the ones who have favored status within the Democratic party. Plus, lots of those small businesses the Dems claim to favor will be hit by the proposed tax hikes in 2011.

Now is not the time to raise anyone's taxes, even on the wealthy. It's not because we advocate for the rich. Increasing taxes on the rich doesn't really hurt the rich. They're still doing fine. The harm from the "soak the rich" strategy comes from the large negative consumer spending ripple effect caused by those tax increases. That ripple effect crashes downward, harming the non-rich, the working folks. They are the ones who lose their jobs, not the wealthy. I don't know why anyone would want to do that right now, or ever, for that matter.

  • Andrea

    Most likely MOST Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama – But I doubt we will ever hear that. If you want to reduce the deficit you get rid of the tax cuts on the top 2% – if you dont you are not really concerned about it .
    Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republican thought he'd keep. Thats all. You were hanging him on tax cuts a few posts ago – so admit it you were wrong. He didnt change a thing

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    I am not at all surprised that the Republicans blocked the aid to small businesses. It's long been obvious that the Republican leadership would rather have any initiative killed than allow Obama a political victory. The well being of the country is secondary.

    The tax cuts were sold as temporary, so I see their expiration as no more of a problem than what the consumer faces when his teaser rate for his cable service runs out. Nobody claims that tax cuts don't provide stimulus in the economy. But different areas of the economy are stimulated determined by the economic status of the recipient. Putting the money into the hands of the poor practically guarantees that 100% of it will be spent on consumer goods and locally. Putting money into the hands of the rich results in less of it spent on consumer goods and more put into investments. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts stimulated the investment side of the economy, keeping a speculative balloon going. The question is "Which area of the economy do we wish to stimulate?" I would argue that the investment end of the economy has already been the been the recipient of most of the efforts and money committed by government. I would also argue that our economy is suffering primarily for a lack of demand. Lastly, we have already witnessed the economy crash despite these tax cuts, why should trying the same thing (by cancelling their expiration) produce different results this time?

    I am amused by your Democratic class war theory. The actuality is that there's been a class war going on for over 30 years. Here's a hint, those of us who aren't wealthy aren't winning.

  • Tbomb

    Well said, Fred.

  • larry d.

    Tax cuts don't put money into the hands of "the poor" because the poor don't pay taxes. In this economy, middle class citizens will use extra money to try and pay off debt and build a little savings. It's been happening all year. Rich folks spend a lot and invest the rest, and investment leads to jobs.

    In any case, nothing's been done about extending the Bush cuts to this point and they're due to expire in short order.

  • Da King

    Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy won't come anywhere near getting rid of the deficit. It will only generate $50 billion or so per year. The federal government spent more than that last week.

  • Da King

    Who's Fred ?

  • Da King

    frank says, "The Reagan and Bush tax cuts stimulated the investment side of the economy, keeping a speculative balloon going "

    This is incorrect. The Bush tax cuts were across the board. ALL taxpayers got a break. That stimulates spending AND investment, both good things.

    And it wasn't the Bush tax cuts that kept the speculative balloon going, it was low interest rates and mortgage loans handed out like candy. The Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

  • roysoldboy

    When the Dems accept holding the Bush tax cuts I wonder how long that will last. I believe that they will vote for extension just before the election and then allow who wins the election to determine how long they keep the cuts. If they lose control of either house of Congress I think they will make the extension one year during their Lame Duck session. If they win I think they will make it more than one year for all but that top group of tax payers. They have to make it appear that they are the "good" guys to that lower half of voters who have found that they can vote their wallets and gain for themselves.

    Didn't one of those Founders make a comment about what happens when people find out that they can vote money for their own pocket books? Don't they already outnumber the payers of taxes?

  • sunklhammer

    The funny thing about atheists is how stupid they are. There's no pay-off for them:

    If they're right, when they die, they'll never know it. If they're wrong, it will be too late for them to do anything about it.

    Atheism is just another example of how prideful mankind thinks they're the most intelligent being in the universe, and that everything came from nothing…..even though there's not one example or evidence of it, anywhere.

    Pretty stupid.

  • frank

    Where do you think that the money which funded all those loans came from? I stand by my statements about Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts. The major winners of the Bush tax cut were the wealthy recipients of unearned income, who tax rate was cut to 15%. Wasn't it about 84% in 1979? Warren Buffett claims to pay tax at a lower rate than his secretary.

  • Da King

    The Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis. Nothing.

    But why on earth would you be against investment in our country ? That's what drives our economic engine. The more we tax that investment, the less of it we'll get. It just doesn't make sense to tax it prohibitively when we're in worldwide competition. I'm also 100% sure that Warren Buffett pay tens of millions more in taxes than his secretary does, not to mention the fact that Buffett's activities gave the secretary her job in the first place. I don't know why the left continues to fail to understand these things. I'd pull my hair out if I had any left.

  • phil

    Wow, I'm stunned that you would actually even slightly agree with any proposal a Democratic House would try to pass. And by the way, when you ask what took so long, does it really matter? This version of the Senate could of had the proposal for 50 years & still not pass anything. Lead,follow, or get out of the way! I must admit I'm not real sure what Mitch McConnell would like to add to the bill, but I'm very sure that he doesn't know either.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    First you deny that the Bush tax cuts affected the amount of capital available to fuel the housing bubble, then you claim low rates are needed to spur investment. It can't be both. It should be obvious that to fuel a speculative bubble an increased amount of money is needed to speculate with. And it should also be obvious that the effect of tax rates is small. Take Warren Buffett, again. Do you believe that he would take his money out of the market if his taxes were increased? What would he do with it? Spend it on toys? Did he change his investment strategy when his taxes were slashed?
    I'm not against investment. I was fortunate to have a 401k plan at work for about 15 years. So I'm an investor, too. The only incentive I needed to invest was the desire to lose my dependency on wages for survival. Being able to survive and prosper by means of investments seems infinitely more desirable than trading one's time and physical and mental energies. My only regret is that I couldn't invest more.
    But investment is only one of three things needed for a business, the other two being producers of a good or service, and consumers for said good or service. Each affects the other.
    And why should Buffett pay a lower tax rate than his secretary? I can't understand that one (neither can Buffett). Care to hazard a guess about how much less he pays in taxes due to tax cuts than he would have paid 15 years ago? How about over the last 30 years? 50?

  • larry d.

    How about we just lower the secretary's taxes?

  • Da King

    I'll agree with any Democratic proposal that makes sense. Unfortunately, most of them don't. But it DOES matter why it took so long for a jobs bill like this to be proposed. It's been two years since the bottom fell out of our economy. When Obama was paying off the people who voted for him with his failed stimulus bill, wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process, he could have been doing things like this jobs bill instead, which would have helped create permanent jobs. Small businesses should have been the first ones he helped.

  • Da King

    I don't deny that tax cuts free up capital for investment. Only left-wingers deny things so obvious (and ironically, after saying the Bush tax cuts led to the housing crisis, you also argued that they had little effect. Go figure).

    What I said was, the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble. That is still true. The housing bubble would have happened with or without the Bush tax cuts. It's not like all the mortgage companies were broke prior to the Bush tax cuts. They had plenty of money to invest, and with interest rates low, combined with easy credit policies and a secondary mortgage market the government constructed to offload risk and responsibility (which turned out to be quite untrue, as we've seen), that created the housing bubble. Blaming it on the Bush tax cuts is a laughable claim.

    Because you're an investor, here's another tip. The lower taxes are, the more you can invest and the more you can make your own nest egg grow. And the more money that remains in the private sector, the more producers of goods and services you will get. The consumer demand will take care of itself if the product is good and the consumers have any money (which lower taxes also help).

    The other thing you're not considering regarding investment dollars is this – that money can be LOST as easily as it can spur capital gains. If Warren Buffett lost a million dollars ten years in a row, and then made a million dollars, he'd be nine million in the hole, but he'd still have to pay taxes on the one million he made. You think it would be fair to take 40% of that money ? Investment capital SHOULD be treated quite differently from wages.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    I didn't say that the Bush tax cuts caused the housing bubble. I said that it provided the necessary capital. My point about the tax rate is that investors have more than enough incentive without lowering their tax rate to below that of their wage earning counterparts. Simply being able to earn a living without selling one's time and efforts has always been incentive enough.
    I was also trying to explain that when the lower tax brackets receive a tax cut, they are more likely to spend the money on goods or services than invest it. When the wealthy receive tax cuts, they are more likely to invest the money. So, if one wishes to increase demand for consumer goods, it's more effective to cut the taxes of the poor. If one wishes to increase the amount of capital in investment, one should cut the taxes at the top.
    If Warren Buffett lost money for ten years and then earned $1million on his investments, he would be in the same spot as the wage earner who after being jobless for ten years, got a job paying him $1million, except the wage earner would pay more in taxes. Is that fair?

  • The Reverend

    Appreciate King's fairness in this post.

    I simply disagree with Obama's tax cuts for small businesses.

    Why? Is it because I hate small business? No…. small businesses have cut workers not because their taxes are too high. They have cut workers because THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS.

    Will cutting taxes for small businesses produce more customers? No.

    The only way out of the mess Wall Street has created is for the government to implement another WPA program. The capitalists are hoarding their gold, like all true miserly bastards do…….so that only leaves the federal government. Conservatives may not like to admit it…..but they too, know I'm correct about this.

  • Da King

    Reverend,
    I know you only called this post "fair" because I dumped on the GOP, but thanks anyway.

    But I disagree with your logic, and here's why:

    Yes, consumer spending is down, but that's because there aren't enough jobs. In order to address spending, the consumers must have money to spend, which they will not have until job creation takes place. Obama's small business jobs bill isn't the entire answer, but it could help. The capitalists are not "miserly bastards," but the capitalists do look to make a profit. They don't want to lose their money any more than you or I do. The only smart move for the government is to create conditions favorable to the capitalists making that profit. Obama has largely failed on that score. The capitalists are scared about what he's already done, and scared about what he might do in the future. That is ALL Obama's fault.

    The government borrowing tons more money is definitely a step in the wrong direction. We don't just have an unemployment/recession problem now, we also have a huge debt problem which is already increasing at an unbelievable rate. Throwing more logs on that blazing inferno will only weaken us further. The last thing we want to do is become Greece. FDR didn't face the same situation back in the early 30's. Finally, none of FDR's interventionist policies actually ended the Great Depression. WWII accomplished that.

  • The Reverend

    I'll give you credit for getting the Fox points down pat. frank tried to explain it all to you….but you won't have any of it.

    You actually admit you are wrong here….

    "Yes, consumer spending is down, but that's because there aren't enough jobs. In order to address spending, the consumers must have money to spend, which they will not have until job creation takes place. Obama's small business jobs bill isn't the entire answer, but it could help."

    It could help? The fact is….it won't create any new jobs and is only being offered by Obama for political reasons. He's oh-so-Bipartisan and all. Government CAN create jobs directly….which is what should be done…..but that wouldn't please our nation's wealthy masters, so we have to endure near double digit unemployment until those masters make a few more trillion.

    And here is the source of our nation's problems, writ large…

    "The only smart move for the government is to create conditions favorable to the capitalists making that profit."

    For 60 years I have heard that mantra. It is entirely mistaken. It has, and will, continue to make the U.S. a nation of haves and the dirt poor….just like it has been doing for the last 40 years.

    Consider what you are saying: Our nation has never lowered taxes for the wealthy to such low levels as we've recently witnessed. I know you know that is true. And yet, what has happened? Record unemployment and lower purchasing power for 97% of Americans.

    I guarantee you that if all of America's rich were given taxation-free privileges……they would still not do a damn thing to provide jobs. Not in their interest….an interest, you say, transcends all interests.

  • Da King

    Actually, Rev, that mantra about capitalists being free to make profits holds true for the entire history of our country, not just the last 60 years. It's called freedom. That mantra is how we became the richest country in the history of the world, but apparently, you know better. Color me skeptical.

    Taxes were far lower for the majority of our country's history than they are now.

    And if you want to see much higher unemployment, let's go ahead and jack taxes through the roof in a lousy economy. That will certainly do it. This isn't, or shouldn't, even be a left-right issue (unless you really are a Communist). It's dollars and cents. The more taxes you take from a person's pocket, the less money he will have to spend. In the case of the private business sector, this translates to less money to invest, expand, and create jobs. In the case of individuals, this translates to less money for consumer spending to support businesses that create jobs. It's not rocket science, Rev, and it's not Fox News mumbo-jumbo, or whatever distraction you want to put up. It's economics. It's basic math. You should have learned this in the first grade.

    In case you don't know, and it seems you don't, the USA has the second highest business tax rates in the world. That doesn't help our competitiveness one bit, and it doesn't help job creation one bit either. To the extent we are thriving, we are doing it in spite of our current tax structure, not because of it.

    But to make you and frank happy, I have previously proposed one high tax rate that you two big government lackeys should like – I'd go along with a windfall profits tax on individuals who make very large salries to keep for themselves. Not on $250,000 and above, which is galactically stupid and counterproductive, but more like on $5 million and above. Let's hit them with an additional 20% or so. Along with this, I'd move the S-corps out of the individual tax code and into the business tax code structure so we are not at the same time penalizing small businesses who make profits that can be used for expansion and job creation. I'd lower business tax rates to levels competitive or better than the rest of the world to assist in bringing jobs here instead of watching them move away. These proposals would penalize the greedy rich you two hate so much, but still help the free enterprise goose that lays our middle class golden job eggs.

  • Da King

    And Rev, in case you forgot, it's the rich that DO provide the jobs. The poor don't provide any.

  • barackem

    frank, it's not a class war. It is a war for the hearts and minds of the people. Are we a nation that believes in individual rights or are we a nation that thinks that social engineers can take from one to give to another according to their own whims. Are we going to teach our kids that they can do anything and reach any heights through planning, hard word, good habits, and perseverence or are we going to teach them that they have no hope because the rich are taking all money from the poor? The latter is taught in poor neighborhoods with predictable results. It ends with kids who give up before they even start and don't bother doing the things that will bring them success. We have demeaned the dignity and human spirit, debased the human potential of millions, and devastated whole communities with this upside down mentality along with the upside down reward systems that our welfare state has built on that ridiculous belief system.

    During the election, Obama hit on the bottom line when asked about changing the capital gains rate. When it was pointed out that the government actually received less income when capital gains rates were raised, his response was that it was about fairness. In other words, if you can't lift the poor, just tear down the rich. That is nothing but pure stupidity, cutting off one's nose to spite their face. It is the politics of envy and false hope. That is why Cubans are starving and risk their lives on rickety home made boats to come to America. That is why people from around the world do the same. It is sad that so many who were lucky enough to be born here are so blind to the opportunities this nation offers.

  • frank

    Mr. barackem,
    It's sad that you don't realize that we are in a class war. Nearly every change to the economy over the last thirty years or so has benefitted the wealthy. Changes in income and SS tax rates and deductions, trade policy, banking and financial regulation, etc have been enacted at the expense of the middle class and to the profit of the wealthy. Our representatives in the federal government are dependent on the wealthy for the funds required to achieve their positions.
    You provide two false choices about how we prepare kids for the future. While all the traits you suggest are admirable and should be taught, it takes more than these traits to be successful. No one is proposing that we teach helplessness, but I would guess that the people living in poor neighborhoods are aware of the obstacles they face.
    I simply cannot understand how it can be fair to tax unearned income at a lower rate than wages. Expecting the wealthy to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the poor doesn't "tear down the rich". Having the poor pay taxes at a higher rate than the wealthy doesn't "lift up the poor".
    This isn't the "politics of envy and false hope". It is simply about fairness. What is really sad is when people are blind to the fact that the opportunities offered by this nation have decreased and will continue to do so as long as we retain our present practices.

  • frank

    The rich provide investment capital. The poor and the rest of us provide the consumer demand that attracts investment capital. A successful business climate contains three things, investment, production, and consumption. All three are necessary and interdependent.

  • frank

    Please don't erode your principles any further to make me happy. I would propose basing the tax rates on the median per capita income. Someone making 10 times the median income would pay ten times the amount of tax as someone earning the median. If there were a way to guarantee that tax relief would result in lower prices, I would agree on eliminating corporate tax for businesses that are HQ'd and employ the majority of its employees in this country. I would also forbid importation of goods produced with methods or materials forbidden in this country, such as child labor or chemicals such as DDT. I would also have a system of tariffs based on production cost differentials. I would also reinstate the Securities Transaction Excise Tax at 1%.
    Once again, these proposals are not about penalizing the "greedy rich you hate so much". It is about fairness and funding and stopping the loss of the "middle class job eggs"

  • barackem

    We don't need poor people to create demand. In fact, the more prosperous a society becomes, the more investment, more production, and more consumption. Our primary goal should be to try to make as many people wealthy as possible in this nation and create as many pies as possible rather than taking from the rich or sharing the same pie. in order to do that we have to quit convincing poor kids that they will remain that way. We have to quit telling poor kids that when someone else gets rich, it means there is a better chance that they will remain poor. It is factually wrong and it is hurtful.

  • barackem

    The obstacles of someone in a poor community are the same as the obstacles in a rich community with one exception. Poor kids are told they can't make it without help, whether it is the government or an employer. They are told it's who they know. They are told that it takes someone to lose a job for them to gain a job. The problem isn't a lack of educational opportunities. There is a school in every neighborhood in America. It's not monetary poverty. The greatest generation of Americans was raised in conditions that today would be considered poverty.

    The problem is the hopelessness that you are selling and the false solutions that have been more complicit in creating the problem than any realty based in fairness. I can't think of anything more unfair to innocent kids than what you are selling.

    People in rich neighborhoods are told that the sky is the limit. Don't wait for other people. Get out and make something happen. If there is a job available to learn a trade, great. If not, print a business card and go do something until the job that you want opens up. They are told it is who they know so go out and network. Don't spend your life in a minimum wage job and then complain that minimum wage is too low. Plan, work hard, save even if it means temporary sacrifice. Don't worry about impressing other with cool wheels or expensive clothes to prove worth. Don't let others control your life.

    How many millions of kids are now owned by the welfare system? Rules dicated reward systems that took fathers out of the home and ownership out of the community. Now kids are raised on the streets and the only thing they own is a can of spray paint to mark their territory.

    It is long past time to look at the actual results of attempts at compassion and fairness. There is nothing fair or compassionate about any of it.

  • Da King

    frank says, "Someone making 10 times the median income would pay ten times the amount of tax as someone earning the median"

    Sooo, if someone making $40,000 paid 20%, then someone making $400,000 should pay ten times that, which would be…200% ?????

    Something doesn't sound quite right there.

    But if you're talking in dollar terms, you're actually proposing a huge tax cut for the rich. If the median income guy making $40,000 pays 20%, that would be $8,000 in taxes paid. If the $400,000 guy paid ten times that, it would be $80,000 – a tax rate of 20%. Currently, the $400,000 guy would pay 35%, or $140,000.

    Back to the drawing board.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    Your right . I'm wrong. I don't know what happened. I was going to advocate adding several rates beyond the highest rate, based upon increments of the median income. I believe that Steve Forbes must have hacked into my computer. But I'm happy that you don't believe in a flat tax either. It took a day to fix, but I think my computer is back to normal.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).