During the Democratic primary campaign, Barack Obama, along with all of his Democratic contenders, promised a swift repeal of these tax cuts. A rollback of tax cuts benefiting only corporations and the wealthiest individuals was supposed to provide the financing for Obama’s policy proposals, from education and health care to infrastructure and green energy. But by September, the Democratic nominee was already backpedaling on his pledge, and within three weeks of his election, Obama’s economic advisors confirmed that, after all, the new president might just let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2011, rather than eliminating them two years earlier. The decision is based on the premise that it is unwise—in economic as well as political terms—to raise taxes during a recession, since lower taxes stimulate the economy.
At the same time, New York’s Democratic governor David Patterson has refused to consider instituting a temporary “millionaire’s tax” to address his state’s desperate financial needs, choosing instead to slash vital social programs. Patterson claims that such a tax will drive businesses and wealthy individuals out of New York and further depress the economy. (This despite billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s declaration that among his rich friends, he’d “never heard one person say ‘I’m going to move out of the city because of taxes.’”)
But an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, released earlier this year, debunks the myth that tax cuts for the rich more than “pay for themselves” by fueling economic growth.
[...]
Especially during a recession, if we put more money in the pockets of the rich, it is likely to stay right there—in their pockets. On the other hand, if we put more money in the hands of low- and middle-income workers through tax cuts, and in the hands of the poor and unemployed through increases in government programs (food stamps, TANF, unemployment benefits), that money is virtually guaranteed to go directly into the economy, since its recipients have no choice but to spend it on their basic needs—food, clothing, gasoline, doctor’s bills.
And for those righties who think we leftist, pinko editors here at DU will be soft on Obama, I, for one, plan some ass nailing to walls when promises start getting broken. That makes us even more cranky.
#97–Mustard==well done. If one lies about their own work product, can they have any credibility at all?
#96–noname==how old are you? Hopefully you can grow as a person and not let such character flaws continue. There is a certain strength in being humble enough to credit your sources. The further benefit is that if your material is later refuted you have already insulated yourself from direct criticism by your respectful scholarship.
You gotta love the google.
#95 It’s a pitty there’s not something like a 911 for web pages/blogs. You clearly need some medical assistance. I would have galdly called 911 from here, but there’s no such thing. I wish you get better though.
Wow from a blog that routinely posts other people’s pictures uncredited.
A website devoted to President Obama’s Promises and Broken Promises.
http://allamericanblogger.com/president-obamas-promises/
#104, benson,
In case you didn’t notice, your link is phony. Obama isn’t even in office yet.
BUT, I did take the time to look at one claim
Windfall profits tax – July 2008 – Broken December 2008 (thanks to Steve!)
If you follow both the original idea (Oil companies reaping in huge profits) and the “broken promise” you will notice that a windfall profit tax is no longer necessary as prices have dropped so precipitously.
Why do idiots do shit like this?
So, Barack the “magic negro” has lost some of his magic??? Nooooo… I guess throwing the queers under the church bus with rick Warren and keeping the Bush defense department and not taking away the “tax breaks for the rich” as promised has the libs scared shitless….
hey..can any editors email me as to what
it was i did/said in my post that
gave it the nix please..so i can avoid
such issues in the future..
the only thing i could see on the surface
is that is was “absurdly long”…
oh..and fwiw:
amongst other things in the post,
i had youtube links to prove
obama’s 150k/yr tax comments, as well as bill richardson talking about 120k/yr. (also have yet
another youtube link of obmana stating that 97k/yr was “upper income” and thus NOT middle class…all from the horses mouth..
anyway.. obama sliding from 250k to 150k here:
here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=D0pNZ4Cycp4
-and bill richardson talking about 120k /yr
here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI&feature=related
enjoy!
-s
(i have a copy of thew whole post nonetheless..(i write posts in
Ultraedit so as to avoid possible loss when clicking the submit button..)
ps…
#106 said:
“So, Barack the “magic negro””
-rofl..i’ve heard that song on the
radio too funny for words..
(ps: google “the iron law of oligarchy”
for an intersting persepective of
where we are headed with our our current government models)
-s
#96, noname,
You call BS but you didn’t say what was incorrect. Since Mr. Mustard accurately pointed out your “copy and paste” trick, I’ll just stay with your first paragraph.
Total BS, what you are describing is more accurately a description of the Jamestown settlement in Virginia and the conquistadors in South America
Not quite. The Spanish in America were mostly adventurers seeking treasure. Spanish colonization was mostly to protect their conquest of the region. Jamestown was much closer to the Plymouth goal in that they were set on settlement first and finding treasure second.
So let us look at the first sentence of your plagerized work.
Plymouth was intended for family settlement and commerce .
The key word there is commerce. That is capitalism.
Plymouth colony did pay off its debt to the London merchants, and it’s intent was not as you describe.
They didn’t pay off the total debt. Much of their payments were lost to pirates, scoundrels, or bad accounting by their agent.
They then sought financing through the Merchant Adventurers, a group of Puritan businessmen who viewed colonization as a means of both spreading their religion and making a profit.
Know you American history or go back to Canada.
Ha ha ha, asswipe, I studied American History for my degree. If you notice, I do cite my sources plus I was very careful to note that my first post was a very brief summary. I also said I had no intention to start rifling through any of my stashed reference material to educate “contempt”. I won’t do it for you either.
#96, noname,
NOTE: This was rejected by the spam filter. I removed the links.
You call BS but you didn’t say what was incorrect. Since Mr. Mustard accurately pointed out your “copy and paste” trick, I’ll just stay with your first paragraph.
Total BS, what you are describing is more accurately a description of the Jamestown settlement in Virginia and the conquistadors in South America
Not quite. The Spanish in America were mostly adventurers seeking treasure. Spanish colonization was mostly to protect their conquest of the region. Jamestown was much closer to the Plymouth goal in that they were set on settlement first and finding treasure second.
So let us look at the first sentence of your plagerized work.
Plymouth was intended for family settlement and commerce .
The key word there is commerce. That is capitalism.
Plymouth colony did pay off its debt to the London merchants, and it’s intent was not as you describe.
They didn’t pay off the total debt. Much of their payments were lost to pirates, scoundrels, or bad accounting by their agent.
They then sought financing through the Merchant Adventurers, a group of Puritan businessmen who viewed colonization as a means of both spreading their religion and making a profit.
Know you American history or go back to Canada.
Ha ha ha, asswipe, I studied American History for my degree. If you notice, I do cite my sources plus I was very careful to note that my first post was a very brief summary. I also said I had no intention to start rifling through any of my stashed reference material to educate “contempt”. I won’t do it for you either.
#107 – SW
Are you really a moron, or do you just play one on dvorak dot org slash blog?
How many times does the difference between “tax cuts” “tax hikes” and “no change in taxes” have to be explained to you before you understand it?
Figures you’d like “Barack the Magic Negro” at your age. I thought “Do your tits hang low, do they dangle to and fro, can you tie ‘em in a knot, can you tie ‘em in a bow?” was pretty keen too, when I was I was in third grade.
And how about “We three kings of Orient are, smoking on a rubber cigar”?? Festive, bitches! For the holiday season! Ho ho ho! (nappy-headed and regular).