House extends Bush-era tax cuts for families making under $250,000

[GeneC]

what Bush did huh? I think you mean what the Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did and Slick Willie. Of course resembling the truth, fact or even logic and reason is usually lost on citizens like you.

Your life would be ever so much better if you would just figure out that most politicians DON"T have your or my best interest at heart...that's Republican or Democrat. Bush didn't create the economic mess, the laws that allowed that to occur happened under our friend Bill Clinton. So, does Bush get a pass...no. He saw it on the horizon, mentioned a couple of times to congress, was mocked and scoffed at as being an absurdity and then he moved on. He should have persisted in sounding the alarm.

Obama is an absolute disaster. He is Bush spending times a zillion and what has happened as a result....nothing. 10% unemployment and 18% underemployment. It's always fun to see who still suppports Obama....the numbers are quite few....who do you think through the Dems out? Yep...the very ones that voted Obama in. Buyers remorse. Baha :)

FT poses an interesting question....the usual type when you have congress playing class warfare in an effort to raise taxes. Congress and the President MUST stop wasteful spending....They need to be more accountable. I sure don't want to be penalized for their cavelier out of control waste that has produced nothing. No sir....want to pay off the "stimulis" (funny)...do it by ending waste and lowering taxes.

Spot on!!

[GeneC]

Obama OKs Two-Year Renewal of Bush Cuts

In a surprise move, President Barack Obama compromised with congressional Republicans, allowing for the Bush tax cuts to be fully extended for two years. The extension includes cuts for higher-income individuals, and keeps the 15 percent rate for dividends and capital gains. The deal also includes a one-time cut in Social Security taxes.

For Full Coverage, Go Here Now Obama Said to Agree on Extending Tax Cuts for Two Years

[Just_A_Guy]

This is an extraordinarily good deal for the Republican leadership. Makes me wonder what the catch is.

[GeneC]

-- President Obama holds briefing day after announcing deal on taxes. Watch live on CNN.com and CNN TV at 2:20 pm ET.

[Guest]

This is an extraordinarily good deal for the Republican leadership. Makes me wonder what the catch is.

I''m wondering the same thing... I have a feeling it will be in the form of payroll taxes - like removing the cap on SS contributions and some such - or capital gains and such.

[GeneC]

Not a done deal

Reid, Senate Democrats Threaten to Block Obama Deal on Tax Cuts

Reid, Senate Democrats Threaten to Block Obama Deal on Tax Cuts

[talisyn]

I hope they block it. Unbelievable how the dems had the moral high ground when the reps held hostage the unemployment extension (what was that, about $60 billion in cost?) so that the tax break (i.e. not paying the taxes already in place) on those making more than $250k/year would be extended (costing what, about $130 billion?), and then lost it when Pres. Obama made that deal with the reps. Not blaming Obama on that, he just wants people to be able to eat lol. But now if the dems block this bill they will be seen as the ones who want to ruin the unemployed's Christmas..and rent, food, stuff like that. Well played, reps. Well played indeed

[Just_A_Guy]

Frankly, no one had the moral high ground on this. Both sides were willing to kill the tax breaks for the middle class if they didn't get their way on the tax breaks (or lack thereof) for the wealthy--it's just that, procedurally, that willingness came through in different ways because of the parties' relative bargaining positions.

As I understand it, constitutionally all finance bills have to originate in the House. What that meant is that come January, the tax cuts would have actually expired, the (newly Republican) House would have been the ones proposing legislation to fix the problem. Their version almost undoubtedly would have sought to make the tax cuts permanent (rather than just extend them for two more years as per the current deal), the White House would have gagged, and suddenly the Democrats would have been the Party of No down through the next election cycle.

Politically, this is the best thing for the Dems--and it will be an extra boon if the economy doesn't show some serious improvement before 2012, because Obama can paint himself as having tried the Republicans' way and having "conclusively proven once and for all" that tax cuts don't help the economy.

And on that tangent, consider this: Is it worse to have Rush Limbaugh personally invested in the President's political failure, or the President politically invested in the country's economic failure? Food for thought over the next two years . . .

Edited December 8, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[HoosierGuy]

2010 - the year the ultra wealthy were renamed Job Creators.

[Just_A_Guy]

Only in 2010?

Pity it took us so long.

[talisyn]

But now they have to make jobs...hopefully in the USA lol.

[HoosierGuy]

Only in 2010?

Pity it took us so long.

This is what I originally was going to say:

And so it was written, in the year 2010. All the lights on Wall Street turned from white to red to green, as green as money. A voice was heard from the sky. All the bankers, stock brokers, and hedge fun operators looked up to the sky and listed and heard a mighty voice. And the voice said to them: FROM NOW ON THE ULTRA WEALTHY SHALL BE CALLED THE JOB CREATORS! And all the men and women on Wall Street jumped up and down with joy and gave praise to the voice from above - Rush Limbaugh.

I do not trust the Job Creators one bit.

The question people are asking now is - if tax cuts for the ultra wealthy create jobs, where in the wold has the creating been the last eight year when Bush was in office and the ultra wealthy had their tax cuts? The U.S. LOST jobs under Bush and the tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.

Although times are tough, Obama is creating jobs. Read Kiplinger's Newsletter. I read it at the library. Latest edition says the economy is growing, slowly but growing. And Kiplinger's is a pro business newsletter.

[talisyn]

As far as I can see, most American businesses have been creating jobs...in China. Kind've a vicious cycle. Companies ship jobs overseas because of cheaper labor, import cheaper products. Americans with lower-paying jobs buy cheaper stuff cause they can't afford American product prices, creating a bigger demand for imports. Economics, what can you do? Besides give the companies with foreign employees lots of tax breaks

[Guest]

As far as I can see, most American businesses have been creating jobs...in China. Kind've a vicious cycle. Companies ship jobs overseas because of cheaper labor, import cheaper products. Americans with lower-paying jobs buy cheaper stuff cause they can't afford American product prices, creating a bigger demand for imports. Economics, what can you do? Besides give the companies with foreign employees lots of tax breaks

It is really getting tiresome answering to posts like these that show nothing but ignorance of economics and fair trade....

Okay, Talisyn and Hoosier. Go to your local university and sign up for Economic Analysis class. Please.

Then come back here and respond to your own posts on this thread.

[GeneC]

Defying President Obama, House Democrats vote not to bring up tax deal he negotiated with GOP in its current form.

[Just_A_Guy]

The question people are asking now is - if tax cuts for the ultra wealthy create jobs, where in the wold has the creating been the last eight year when Bush was in office and the ultra wealthy had their tax cuts?

Let us grant, for a moment, your simplistic worldview that the president and only the president is responsible for the country's economic climate. To answer your question about where the jobs were: They were all over the country, mitigating the damage of the dot-com crash. Bush inherited an unemployment rate of 4.2%. It went up to about 6.3% in the wake of the dot-com crash/9-11, and was back down to 4.4% as late as May of 2007. (Figures here.)

Although times are tough, Obama is creating jobs. Read Kiplinger's Newsletter. I read it at the library. Latest edition says the economy is growing, slowly but growing. And Kiplinger's is a pro business newsletter.

The max unemployment in the Bush administration prior to the real estate bubble popping was 6.3%, in June of 2003. A year and a month later it was down to 5.5%.

The max unemployment in the Obama administration was 10.1%, in October of 2009. A year and a month later, here we are at 9.8%. And several tens of thousands of those are either census jobs--which are temporary by nature--or government jobs that otherwise don't directly add to the GDP.

So, taking a very simplistic analysis of the numbers: what we see is that in a post-recession environment, Obama increased annual government outlays by (if memory serves) something like fifty percent, and still couldn't alleviate unemployment even half as much as Bush did simply by getting out of the way and letting Americans do what Americans do best. Who knows where we'd be now, if two years ago everyone acknowledged that the tax climate would remain stable at least into 2012?

As far as I can see, most American businesses have been creating jobs...in China. Kind've a vicious cycle.

Well . . . sort of. What most economics textbooks will tell you, though, is that the company is paying in dollars. (Or, if it pays in Yuan, it does so with money it converted from dollars on a money market somewhere.) Once those American dollars from the company get into the money market, the theory is that they aren't just going to sit in some safe in Beijing . . . the holders are going to use them to pay for other goods and services which were produced in America by American workers paid in dollars. It takes a while, but ultimately everything should come full circle if the theorists are correct. (AFAIK this isn't conservative dogma; it's economics 101.)

Edited December 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

(AFAIK this isn't conservative dogma; it's economics 101.)

This is what I'm trying to say.

Economics is completely different from Politics. Sure political policy can impact economics but the "natural laws" of economics are pretty much set and proven. So, it would be really cool if you guys would study Economic Theory - which, by the way, is offered in High School - so you can differentiate between political policy impacting economics and just plain economic theory in action before dumping everything on Bush or Obama!

It's pretty silly to say things like "The wealthy got renamed the Job Creators"...

Fact of the matter is... those who have wealth are the ones that can create jobs.... it's called CAPITAL INVESTMENT. Wealth comes in many forms. The most common method of getting money for a corporation is through public offerings of STOCKS... Usually, the people moaning about the "Wealthy" are also moaning against "Wall Street". How else can a company/business hire people to do jobs? A company/business need MONEY to pay for raw materials so they can create a product... the creation of that product requires a workforce - who need payroll - which requires MONEY. A product just don't appear on the market using MAGIC. Who buys those stocks? People with MONEY.

So... who created the jobs? PEOPLE WITH MONEY.

And, of course, there's the smaller-scale companies, single proprietors, partnerships, LLCs, franchises, Mom and Pops... NONE OF WHICH are going to get started without MONEY. Most of these are started using bank loans. Where does the bank get the money? From PEOPLE WITH MONEY... and those who don't need bank loans start their companies using THEIR OWN MONEY.

Well... if you're a government worker - you are paid by TAXES. Which - in America - comes from... you got it, PEOPLE WITH MONEY.

So yeah, be thankful everyday for wealthy people. They make it possible for you and me to earn a living...

Edited December 10, 2010 by anatess

[Guest]

P.S.

Paris Hilton - the girl everybody loves to hate...

Jobs created by her personal investments (not her family's - just hers):

1.) Partnered with some Japanese firm to create a line of purses.

2.) Has a line of jewelry.

3.) Has a line of fragrances.

I don't have figures but I am willing to bet the number of jobs created by just these 3 businesses (not counting her pos-e for acting/modeling, etc.) number over a hundred people.

Nicky Hilton - Paris' sister that is just as hated...

Invested her money in her own line of hotels separate from Hilton Hotels. Created hundreds of jobs as well.

Brittany Spears - just as hated... although she's not in the limelight anymore...

There's no argument that TONS of people work for Brittany... from her manager all the way to her dancers.

Now, let's see... who is a non-wealthy person that we know of? Okay, I know... ME... number of jobs I created - none.

[talisyn]

Anatess, you seem to not be aware of your economic strength. Every time you buy something you enable an employer to pay an employee. If you didn't buy, he/she wouldn't hire/employee. If a lot of people buy from a company that company usually employs more people to meet demand. You, even though you may not personally employ someone, have just as much to contribute to the unemployment rate as employers.

Basic economics, which I got an A+ in, btw. But said in a much nicer manner :)

Edited December 10, 2010 by talisyn

[Guest]

Anatess, you seem to not be aware of your economic strength. Every time you buy something you enable an employer to pay an employee. If you didn't buy, he/she wouldn't hire/employee. If a lot of people buy from a company that company usually employs more people to meet demand. You, even though you may not personally employ someone, have just as much to contribute to the unemployment rate as employers.

Basic economics, which I got an A+ in, btw. But said in a much nicer manner :)

Hah! I knew you were gonna say that!

Yes, everytime I buy something I enable an employer to pay an employee... Now, where did that SOMETHING come from? It doesn't just appear by magic in the marketplace. It came from the EMPLOYER. Who has to have had some wealth (self-supplied or had an IPO or bank loan) to create the product...

Okay, where did I get the money to buy that thing on the market? I didn't just get that money by magic... it came from MY employer who started the business through an IPO and gave me a paycheck that I then use to buy something.

Business, wall street, and the banks are all demonized. By you and others even. So it's like biting off the hand that feeds you.

So, who ARE the job creators? Not the consumer. The job creators are the guys with initial investment capital! Because no matter how much I want a new thingamagig, if nobody comes up with the initial investment to produce that thingamagig (hiring people in the process), there wouldn't be an economy to speak of...

So, yeah, you got an A+ in economics... great! Now apply it.

I've been fairly nice until somebody mocks the wealth of my employer who has the power to fire me any second when his company ceases to be profitable.

Edited December 10, 2010 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

P.S.

Paris Hilton - the girl everybody loves to hate...

Jobs created by her personal investments (not her family's - just hers):

1.) Partnered with some Japanese firm to create a line of purses.

2.) Has a line of jewelry.

3.) Has a line of fragrances.

I don't have figures but I am willing to bet the number of jobs created by just these 3 businesses (not counting her pos-e for acting/modeling, etc.) number over a hundred people.

Nicky Hilton - Paris' sister that is just as hated...

Invested her money in her own line of hotels separate from Hilton Hotels. Created hundreds of jobs as well.

Brittany Spears - just as hated... although she's not in the limelight anymore...

There's no argument that TONS of people work for Brittany... from her manager all the way to her dancers.

Now, let's see... who is a non-wealthy person that we know of? Okay, I know... ME... number of jobs I created - none.

And the lawyers. Let's not forget the lawyers . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, everytime I buy something I enable an employer to pay an employee... Now, where did that SOMETHING come from? It doesn't just appear by magic in the marketplace. It came from the EMPLOYER. Who has to have had some wealth (self-supplied or had an IPO or bank loan) to create the product...

Touche. Consumer spending redistributes pre-existing wealth (and that's not a bad thing in this context); but ultimately it's the investment of capital that creates new products/services and new wealth. Thus, it is capital (invested largely by those pesky rich people) that tends to drive real economic growth.

[HoosierGuy]

Touche. Consumer spending redistributes pre-existing wealth (and that's not a bad thing in this context); but ultimately it's the investment of capital that creates new products/services and new wealth. Thus, it is capital (invested largely by those pesky rich people) that tends to drive real economic growth.

So it trickles down like it did in the 1980's?

[Guest]

So it trickles down like it did in the 1980's?

The 80's and 90's was one of America's greatest decades economically (no, I don't mean as a government - I mean as a society). Why? BILL GATES, MAN!

No, really. The 80's was the year when the personal computer hit commercial levels. It is a PRODUCT started by American ingenuity. New wealth flooded the market surrounding the production of personal computers - from hardware to software, business applications to home applications. It took a while for the international market to catch up, so for a long time in the 80's, America was exporting products/ideas making the dollar very very strong indeed.

Then the 90's came along and not only did Windows come into the market, the internet entered commerce. All from American ingenuity being exported internationally.

The great thing that Bill Clinton's administration and Congress did in the 90's was to leave technology alone.

Of course, then, greed came into play (as always happens in the free market) where "easy money" type people created dot-coms without a product behind it - they were basically selling air on the internet - and so an economic backlash occurred (as always happens when the free market corrects itself) and precipitated the dot-com bust.

Okay, so most of the 80's and 90's NEW WEALTH (or Job Creation) can be attributed to the personal computer - an American invention.

Now, since the personal computer - can you think of an American product that is driving the economy? None. Why? Most of the products these days are made in China.

So, if you want to get back to the hay-day of the 90's you need a PRODUCT - an AMERICAN product. That is what we need to encourage - make it easier for those who have the resources to PRODUCE something. Taxing the producers will make it HARDER for them to produce something...

See what I'm saying?

Edited December 10, 2010 by anatess

[FunkyTown]

Bill Gates was important, but the most popular home PC of all time was the Commodore 64, invented by good ol' Chuck Peddle. Prior to this, home computing didn't really exist as they were really too expensive. Chuck Peddle is a legend.

commodore.ca | History | Chuck Peddle Inventor of the Personal Computer (Warning: Chuck Peddle occasionally curses).

The Commodore 64 took things that were $3000+ to a few hundred dollars. And the things worked. Suddenly, everyone could afford one.

That changed the world, but was it due to the wealthy investments behind it, or due to improvements in manufacturing?

Tough call, since it was mostly a small group of guys who changed the world.

The 80's and 90's was one of America's greatest decades economically (no, I don't mean as a government - I mean as a society). Why? BILL GATES, MAN!

No, really. The 80's was the year when the personal computer hit commercial levels. It is a PRODUCT started by American ingenuity. New wealth flooded the market surrounding the production of personal computers - from hardware to software, business applications to home applications. It took a while for the international market to catch up, so for a long time in the 80's, America was exporting products/ideas making the dollar very very strong indeed.

Then the 90's came along and not only did Windows come into the market, the internet entered commerce. All from American ingenuity being exported internationally.

The great thing that Bill Clinton's administration and Congress did in the 90's was to leave technology alone.

Of course, then, greed came into play (as always happens in the free market) where "easy money" type people created dot-coms without a product behind it - they were basically selling air on the internet - and so an economic backlash occurred (as always happens when the free market corrects itself) and precipitated the dot-com bust.

Okay, so most of the 80's and 90's NEW WEALTH (or Job Creation) can be attributed to the personal computer - an American invention.

Now, since the personal computer - can you think of an American product that is driving the economy? None. Why? Most of the products these days are made in China.

So, if you want to get back to the hay-day of the 90's you need a PRODUCT - an AMERICAN product. That is what we need to encourage - make it easier for those who have the resources to PRODUCE something. Taxing the producers will make it HARDER for them to produce something...

See what I'm saying?