Obama Acknowledges that Rescinding Tax Cuts Would Hurt Economy
Even Obama admits that increasing taxes hurts the economy.
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
Well, we’re not in a recession (GDP grew at a 3.3% clip in Q2), so I guess we can count on him to raise taxes if he gets elected.
I wonder, does BHO think through these statements before he utters them? I mean, if raising taxes is a drag on the economy, wouldn’t that be true regardless of whether we’re in a recession? Is there some sort of secret economic calculus that he goes through that he could enlighten us about?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1535 hrs
Obama to voters: screw you. I know what I told you, but the rich still need these tax cuts even though I promised you that I would soak the rich.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1538 hrs
Well, we’re not in a recession….
Correct, we are on the verge of collapse.
Tony perhaps you can share how you think we are going to pay for the Freddie and Fannie takeover without raising revenue collections?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1600 hrs
Obama: not keeping the tax cuts would hurt the economy. But I think we should allow them to expire for ideological reasons.
Obama: the Surge succeeded, but I think we should never have done it and accepted defeat.
Obama: increasing capital gains taxes will cut government income, but we should still do it for “fairness.”
Who’s the one blinded by ideology in this race again?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1632 hrs
Tony perhaps you can share how you think we are going to pay for the Freddie and Fannie takeover without raising revenue collections?
economic growth raises tax revenue without raising tax rates
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1757 hrs
economic growth raises tax revenue without raising tax rates
Read ‘em and weep.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/econproj.shtml
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1837 hrs
I wonder if John McCain will still go ahead with his massive middle-class tax increase if he is elected and the economy is still in recession?
Posted by folkbum on September 07, 2008 at 1851 hrs
Tony perhaps you can share how you think we are going to pay for the Freddie and Fannie takeover without raising revenue collections?
Don’t ask me, he’s your candidate. OBH says he doesn’t want to raise taxes since it will hurt the economy. Are you saying your guy’s not sufficiently concerned about paying for the Freddie and Fannie takeover? Didn’t he answer that in one of the white papers on his website? Didn’t he clear this with his economic advisors?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 1921 hrs
Nice try Tony.
You make a wise crack, I challenge you on your thought process for making it, and all of a sudden he is my guy.
Seems like that happens a lot around here.
I think I have defended Obama once. And it had to do with the lame attacks that people made challenging his patriotism.
I have not criticized McCain once, nada, zip.
Yet most of the midgets (no offense to the small people among us) around here have to hang their hats on this partisan BS to stop from actually having to think something through or do a little independent research.
And then Owen posts a head fake like this;
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/on_hypocrisy/
And you persist with your shinola.
The fact of the matter is that whoever is elected in November is going to have to come up with some fresh ideas for paying the bills for Freddie & Fannie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 2009 hrs
Since he’s not your guy, pjr, I’m sure the Palin/McCain ticket is happy to have you on board.
Meanwhile, let me educate you on how blogs work.
If you want to debate the efficacy of different solutions to the mortgage crisis, including the recent bailout, go here: http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/federal_government_seizes_mortgage_giants/
On this post, we are debating the subtle nuances of OBH’s tax plan, until you distracted us, anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 2104 hrs
I wonder if John McCain will still go ahead with his massive middle-class tax increase if he is elected and the economy is still in recession?
What recession is that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2008 at 2131 hrs
What recession is that?
So then McCain will go ahead and jack up taxes on the middle class?
It’s amazing: McCain has proposed a tax increase on almost 60% of Americans, the vast majority middle- and working-class, and no one seems to be raising an eyebrow on the conservative side. I like to call it The Tax Hike That Dare Not Speak Its Name.
Posted by folkbum on September 07, 2008 at 2149 hrs
The thing is, folkbum, I don’t believe that you are correct. I’ve checked McCain’s site, CNN’s description of their plans, BBC’s candidate breakdown, etc. and can find nothing to support your claim. What you provided is a blogger who uses Huffington Post as a source. You may be right, but do you have anything other than a far-left blogger to back up your claim?
Posted by Owen on September 07, 2008 at 2213 hrs
Ah ha! I found it:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/index.htm
McCain suggests that we junk all that. Say you’re earning $100,000 a year and your company provides about $9,000 toward your $12,000 family premium, which is about average. Today you’re taxed only on the $100,000. Under McCain’s plan, you’d also pay on the $9,000. That could mean an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes alone. To compensate for the extra levy, McCain would provide a $2,500 federal tax rebate for individuals and $5,000 per family, meaning a family would simply subtract $5,000 from its tax bill, the equivalent of a big cash payment.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees’ money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d’être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. “I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,” says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you’d have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That’s $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care.
In other words, McCain is offering a nuanced plan to wean us off the employer-paid health insurance system (something the Left claims to hate) and move to a consumer-based system, thus introducing competitive forces to the market.
Yeah, I’ll go for that.
Posted by Owen on September 07, 2008 at 2220 hrs
Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
The problem with McCain’s plan—especially with respect to the universal, single-payer plans that I prefer (though that Obama will never pursue)—is that the market has never, ever acted in the interest of anyone but shareholders. When you talk about matters of life and death, the bottom line should be life, not profit. You and I disagree fundamentally on this, I know. But McCain’s plan is not a solution as much as it is a giveaway to business and a takeaway from the rest of us, plain and simple.
Posted by folkbum on September 07, 2008 at 2247 hrs
Since he’s not your guy, pjr, I’m sure the Palin/McCain ticket is happy to have you on board.
Is it November 4 already? Or do I have a little more time to make a decision?
What recession is that?
This one.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=845141331&play;=1
Meanwhile, let me educate you on how blogs work.
Blow me!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 0641 hrs
Folkbum,
Yes, we do have a fundamental disagreement about what should be done with health care, but that isn’t really the point. You threw out the “McCain wants to raise taxes on the middle class” meme without any context or support. Can you at least admit that it isn’t as black and white as you portrayed it to be?
Posted by Owen on September 08, 2008 at 0834 hrs
Among the problems with your single payer system, folkbum, are that there is absolutely no accountability, absolutely no incentive to treat anyone as a customer, absolutely no incentive to innovate to control costs or to improve care, and absolutely no incentive to speed up care in an effort to improve efficiency outside of the care system.
My current market based plan treats me as a customer.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 0858 hrs
The market bases system has been screwing us for the last decade at least. If you are enjoying it, that’s your prerogative. The single payer method is not perfect but it is more fair to the less fortunate.
I contend that we are already paying for the ones that you seem to think would benefit from single payer. What has changed is the insurance industry is becoming like the oil industry. They know they can do it and will do it as long as we sit and do nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1146 hrs
The single payer method is not perfect but it is more fair to the less fortunate.
Thanslation… It will be better for those who don’t support themselves at the expense of those that are trying to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1209 hrs
economic growth raises tax revenue without raising tax rates
Read ‘em and weep.
You asked a question, I answerd it pjr. So whats your point? That you can tax your way to economic growth? You give that a try… see how it works out for you. Even your ‘boy’ Barack knows better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1211 hrs
Thanslation… It will be better for those who don’t support themselves at the expense of those that are trying to.
My point is that we are already paying for them. When are we going to do something for those of us who are trying. Single payer will reduce our monthly premiums.
We cannot count on the insurance companies to reduce them now can we?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1229 hrs
Except that ypu are making every effort, moveforward, to keep my health care from being my prerogative.
Government has never reduced the cost of anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1257 hrs
Except that ypu are making every effort, moveforward, to keep my health care from being my prerogative.
The system is broken and we cannot live with “More of the Same”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1301 hrs
“We” don’t provide my health care. It isn’t broken except that I would eliminate some coverage if I could.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1408 hrs
The system is broken and we cannot live with “More of the Same”
Baseless empty rhetoric MoveForward…
Government does not and has not ever changed the market fundamentals.
Healthcare has gotten expensive because of market fundamentals. Supply and demand.
Healthcare and health insurance premiums are going up because we are USING MORE OF IT. Expensive new drugs and a society hell bent on getting a script instead of lifestyle changes. obesity and healthcare costs related to that, living longer and healthcare costs associated with that, expensive surguries like joint replacements. I know of people who are on their 3rd artificial hip. You know how much those surgeries have cost? I mean use to be we’d give them a wheelchair and send em on their way. Now we spend tens of thousands on surgeries to improve ‘quality of life’. I’m not saying its right or wrong, it is what it is. Expensive malpractice insurance in an overly letigious society. The demand for healthcare has skyrocketd.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The increase in health insurance premiums over the last decade is marked by an increased demand.
What part of that is government taking over going to change? How is the government (which can’t do anything better, faster or cheaper) going to change the market fundamentals MoveForward?
You can throw out your empty rhetoric all you want, but unless something changes the market fundamentals, something is going to ‘give’ and the law of unintended consequences WILL have its way. And given what we see in other socialized countries its going to be poor access to services/rationing (and all of this on top of a new HUGE administration created within government thats going to have thousands and thousands of employees and government salaries along with government benefits to pay for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1434 hrs
What part of that is government taking over going to change? How is the government (which can’t do anything better, faster or cheaper) going to change the market fundamentals MoveForward?
Administration costs in the current market based structure eat up 30% of every dollar. Under the Medicare structure the administration costs are 3%. Run the numbers. until Bush and Congress messed with Medicare by making it confusing, I had heard very few complaints about such a government run system.
Another example is the VA system which is the model of efficiency. I do not hear those who are able to use that system complaining either. The big complaint there is that not enough veterans have actual access to it.
Cynicism is an empty argument. Do nothing and it will get worse. We have to do something before the insurance companies and hospitals become proud owners of all our homes through the ten-fold foreclosures happening all around us. Read your paper and see how many foreclosures have the hospital named as the debt collector.
I am not content to see the U.S. be 39th on the list of countries in life expectancy and access to health care. There are third world countries that are better than us in this respect.
Praise capitalism if you want, it has its greedy little issues to be dealt with as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1446 hrs
I am not content to see the U.S. be 39th on the list of countries in life expectancy and access to health care. There are third world countries that are better than us in this respect.
What 3rd world countries have better access to healthcare than the US?
Praise capitalism if you want, it has its greedy little issues to be dealt with as well.
So lets say they come out with a new artificial joint that last 20 years, but costs $100,000… Do we just give one to everyone that wants one? How could we afford that? Who gets to decide what we can have and what we don’t? What about Lasik? Knowing that 50% of the population wears glasses or contacts, do we all get lasik? How do we pay for that? Do you know what kind of a RUN on lasik dr’s we would have? How would you meet the demand when everything is free? Or does that government board get to decide what is covered and what isn’t… Great… I can’t wait to have my health decisions made by a politician.
What happens when a drug company comes out with a new drug but its $500 a month? Does everyone get it? How could we afford that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1531 hrs
Administration costs in the current market based structure eat up 30% of every dollar. Under the Medicare structure the administration costs are 3%. Run the numbers
Instead of “run the numbers”, read this:
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf (Council for Affordable Health Insurance - Medicare’s Hidden Administrative Costs)
This is from the Executive Summary:
One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs, while private insurance companies’ administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent range.
It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costs with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic reporting and tracking systems used by the government.
This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included.
In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are
included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.We also raise an important, although heretofore unrecognized, issue that gives Medicare an inherent advantage on administrative costs. Because of the higher cost per beneficiary, Medicare administrative costs appear lower than they really are. If the numbers were adequately “handicapped” for comparison with the private sector, they would be in the 6 to 8 percent range.
Finally, like the private sector, Medicare also has to obtain funds to pay claims. But the cost of raising that money, or borrowing it if the government doesn’t collect it from
taxpayers, is excluded from Medicare administrative cost calculations. While we don’t in this paper draw any conclusions about what we shall call the “cost of capital” and its impact on Medicare’s administrative costs, we do want to highlight that those costs exist and that taxpayers, both today and in the future, must bear those costs.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 1614 hrs
xxpboy,
You asked a question, I answered it pjr. So whats your point?
My point is that with GDP relatively flat and possibly negative using the
economic growth raises tax revenue without raising tax rates
approach may not raise enough revenue to cover Frannie and Freddie.
I don’t recall advocating raising taxes, maybe you could point that out to me?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2008 at 2059 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 129
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:17 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).