With the Great Bipartisan Tax Cut Compromise, President Obama has officially adopted the world view of Republicans.
1. No matter what the problem is, tax cuts are the solution.
2. Government cannot solve people’s problems.
Our current problem is massive unemployment, so the President and his team of bank-loving economic officials preach that tax cuts are stimulus. No matter that tax cuts for the rich have a poor payoff in stimulus. No matter that we are adding massive national debt. No matter that we are endangering Social Security. Tax cuts are the answer.
Stimulus that has real bang for the buck comes from direct government spending. Paul Krugman estimated that direct spending might have a three to one increase in GDP per dollar of added debt. And when we spend it on infrastructure projects, we have something of long-term value to show for it. The lowest bang for the buck comes from tax cuts. Obama ignores this fact in his explanations for his Great Bipartisan Tax Cut Compromise, and argues against all logic that this tax cut is necessary to prevent a double dip recession.
Let’s hope it does, because it comes at a very high cost. Obama is admitting that government cannot do anything useful to solve people’s problems, so it outsources the entire stimulus to individuals and corporations. It’s trickle-down stimulus: give the average family a couple of thousand dollars, give rich people massive tax cuts, and hope they’ll spend it on stuff and maybe that will encourage businesses to hire people, and maybe people will go back to work. I didn’t understand trickle-down economics when it meant that giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the top 2% of Americans, and I don’t understand it when it means giving small amounts of money to lots of people on top of hundreds of billions to rich people.
Let’s review. If a family making $75,000 gets a $2,000 one-time payroll tax cut, how likely is it to spend the money in a way that will increase employment? One likely step is to use it to pay down debt, as households have done for the last 10 quarters. The Fed estimates total household debt at the end of October at $13.4 trillion, of which $10.1 trillion was mortgage debt, and $2.4 trillion was other consumer debt. Paying down this massive debt load is a priority for families. Paying down debt doesn’t hire people. Instead, it increases the amount of cash on hand at banks and other lenders, and puts downward pressure on interest rates paid to small savers.
The second likely step is increased accumulation of savings for retirement and other major expenses. Household net worth was estimated at $54.9 trillion, up in the third quarter, but down from its pre-crash high of $65.9 trillion. Households are looking at threats to Social Security and Medicare, increases in costs of education, and economic uncertainty, both as to job security and taxes, housing values and just about everything else. Of course they will try to save. And that will increase the amount of money at banks and brokerages too.
The third possibility is purchases of goods. That might be nice for retailers, but a significant part of the money will go overseas, where many products are manufactured, and where US companies shift their profits to avoid US taxes. Buying an iPad might help Apple’s bottom line, but the iPad isn’t made here, it’s made in Taiwan, and you can bet that the profits aren’t repatriated. Taiwan’s tax rate was recently cut to 17% to compete with Hong Kong and Singapore. Apple will leave its profits there to build new plants and take advantage of cheaper labor.
The Administration has one more place to go begging: it plans to convene a CEO summit:
The administration wants to persuade U.S. companies to unleash some of the $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets they’re hoarding in their treasuries. Cash as a share of total assets is at the highest level it’s been in a half-century, the Federal Reserve said last week. Mr. Obama wants the nation’s biggest companies to invest that money in expansion and new hires in the U.S.
This is pathetic. The most powerful country on the planet cannot do anything itself. It outsources everything, including job creation. It can’t rebuild infrastructure, which would create jobs. It can’t improve education, which creates jobs. It can’t improve our electric grid or invest in solar farms or wind farms, which would create jobs. It can’t do anything.
In other news, 20% of Tennessee families get food stamps, and the Republicans now control State government.




77 Comments










Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I think some of that $1.9 trillion in cash is held overseas. To bring it back they would have to pay taxes. I believe that John Chambers of CISCO has already proposed a “one time” tax deal to encourage companies to do that. Otherwise, he surmises they may have to use it overseas. Such a deal, eh? Now that’s trickle down. Our tax laws are really f’d up. We encourage companies to take profits on their products overseas where the taxes are less.
Obama is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.
TARP
HAMP
Mandatory insurance premiums (insurance companies are Wall Street’s biggest cash cow)
Tax Cuts for the extremely wealthy (another one of Wall Street’s cash cows)
How long before some one mentions that this is voodoo economics?
Medicare cuts because of cost burden? Phama makes a killing on Bushco prescription rates, followed by Obama LLC, and importing drugs from Canada isn’t allowed? Attack on VA health care system because they control costs. Tax holiday will be first successful attack on Social Security if it stands. This is pathetic, along with Congress and the Administration’s being co-opted by special interest perks and money. Too bad WikiLeaks or hackers couldn’t find their offshore accounts; that’d be fun reading.
I can’t tell from the Fed Flow of Funds Report whether those figures include the cash overseas.
You will recall that we did that idiot repatriation of overseas cash thing before, under the Last Bush. In 2004, we gave them one year to repatriate at 5.25%.
Govt is Broken
The Republican and Democratic PARTIES are doing nothing to fix it
I don’t know about the reported cash either. If they just gathered it up from published reports it likely includes cash overseas as well. John Chambers proposed the current thing just a few months ago. I think CNBC and Reuters ran pieces on it. The CNBC piece was inaccurate saying to tax it would be double taxation. It is not, since the US only taxes the excess over the foreign tax. That 5% rate likely left a lot of cash on the table.
by and large the parties won’t fix it, they are (part of) the problem! Many are millionaires and billionaires and are protecting their wealth and campaign donation sources.
We need to find another way.
This deal will stimulate the economy. Some aspects, particularly the one’s you focus on, will do so inefficiently. Specifically, a number of them, such as the estate tax modification, will do so in an insanely inefficient manner.
That said, I don’t think Obama has adopted the world view you suggest.
Rather, he made a deal with a Party that believes this. Consequently, part of the deal reflects their ideology.
Now, where I see the legitimate argument, is whether too much of the deal reflects their ideology, given the present economic and political environment. Obviously, most here think that it does.
One disturbing part of Obama’s planned meeting of CEOs is the potential for another “deal’, maybe not foreign cash but some special tax rates. I am reminded that Adam Smith warned us about meetings like this in his “Wealth of Nations” in 1776.
I don’t understand the disconnect here.
A $1000 extra dollars to a poor person feeds them for several months, the money goes to grocery stores and repair shops employing much more than one person.
A $1000 extra dollars to the rich buys one purse in a Rodeo Drive boutique, which, maybe employs one person.
Talking about efficiency. One method is not even in the ball park.
Show me the part that doesn’t reflect Republican ideology. And don’t tell me about unemployment insurance extensions. First, it doesn’t cover millions of unemployed people, and second, it probably could have been forced through if Obama were capable of fighting for it.
When you make a deal with the devil, you have to expect to lose something. That said the “deal” is generally pretty good for the middle class and most economists say it will improve the economy by a point or more. There is though a severe moral hazard here as we give away still more to the upper classes and the disparity between rich and poor will continue to grow. There is no end to their greed. It is a tough vote.
How? The vast bulk of this “deal” is the extension of the Bush Tax cuts, tax cuts that have been in place since ’01/’03 and led to the worst job creation in the economy of the US since before WWII.
The “payroll tax holiday” will not offset the loss of an earlier tax break for low income individuals and families and is another step on the way to starving Social Security so that it can then be proclaimed that benefits must be cut since there won’t be enough money for Social Security to operate.
The “unemployment extension” still does nothing for those millions who are soon to hit the 99 week mark or for those who are already past it and still looking for decent employment.
Ha.
You are a skilled attorney. As such, you want to proceed with the discussion, only after defining my best argument away. Been there and done that too many times.
Of the 850 billion price tax, Crowley noted today that only about 114 billion went specifically to the upper classes. There is also a bunch to businesses, but the bulk goes to middle classes. I think I read similiar estimates elsewhere. That noted, as I said, this is a tough vote if you see this in the longer term as again caving into the upper class. and who says there is no class war?
you mean one change purse
“Households are looking at threats to Social Security and Medicare, increases in costs of education, and economic uncertainty, both as to job security and taxes, housing values and just about everything else.
I’m in savings mode. One of the biggest reasons is Obama’s unwillingness to protect Social Security.
At least historically, eventually even the flint-hearted repubs voted for extensions of unemployment insurance. In recent months, they have learned to express their inner flint more violently.
This brings to mind one of my favorite one-liners: Reaganomics was supposed to pay off the deficit. This because tax cuts are so very stimulative.
The deal will put money in peoples pockets. As such, it will be stimulative. Period.
You are making a different points about the deal. They are: 1]is it distribution of money equitable; and, 2]is it an efficient stimulus.
I am not arguing against you as to those matters.
The rich get all the same tax cuts as everyone else in the bill, they just get a lot more besides.
And even if “only about $114B” is specifically targeted to the rich, that is still significantly higher per individual than the rest spread amongst all of us peons.
You are aware that the taxes will be going up for individuals making $20K and couples making $40k? How does this put “money in people’s pocket”?
It is not an efficient stimulus when it causes the people making the least to have lower take home pay. In those instances, it’s not even a stimulus at all.
To call bascially an extension of current tax law “stimulative” is quite a stretch. Especially considering the economic performance right now under the current law.
Yes, that 2% of the tax paying public get a larger cut per person. That is the cost of doing a deal with the devil. As they put it so well: “take it or leave it.” But you have to decide if you want to help people or not, not if this is efficient. Come Jan 4th will you be able to say great it did not pass.
Why didn’t they deal with this Bush Tax cut when they had majorities in each chamber. They could have ended the cuts for the rich and continued them for the rest.
Just more of the same, millions for the rich and a few little bones for the rest of us.
No, come January 4th YOU will be able to say, great it did pass. And congratulations.
Just like the healthcare bill, those who support this POS own it too. And a POS it is, as it is the beginning of the end of social security. So more congratulations to those who support that.
Maybe they should start by fixing the way unemployment nos. are figured. Right now according to the way it’s being done as more and more unemployed people are shuffled off the rolls as they’re benefits run out the rate actually could go down even though the nos. of actually unemployed go up. Theoretically if everyone in America somehow lost their job and was then on the UN rolls and ran out of benefits you could end up with zero unemployment with 100% of your population unemployed in reality. FIX the damn way you fig. unemployment and the “real” rate would appear and maybe scare the living crap out of the political class? Maybe not though. I think these weasels are well aware of the game here. Obama doesn’t nor do the GOP care if millions fall off the rolls they’ll both just sit around and wait till this happens and then claim that everything is great cause the rate is going down. That’s waht Obama and the Dems. were hoping for this fall but to everyone’s surprise just the opposite happening with the rate going up even though millions are being dropped off the rolls at the same time. In other word things are getting worse no matter what phony economic figs. are being cooked up to show other wise.
Look, this real simple: the retirement payoff to Obama for his Republican policies will be worth all the criticism. It’s about him, period.
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/
Those figures are not true if you believe the web site mytaxburden.org. A person making 20k will get save $825 on this deal and a married couple making 40k will save $1943. People with two children at the low end save as much as 15% of their gross incomes. Maybe I am not using the calculator on the site correctly but that’s what I got. Check it out.
That aspeact is not stimulative.
But, that is only one aspect of the deal. In the aggregate it puts money in peoples pockets. As such, it will be stimulative.
Also, are you aware that the Democratic House Bill did not extend the Making Work Pay Credit? Plus, the increase in the EITC may ameliorate some of this for the workng poor. Like you, I find this aspect of the deal odious. It should be fixed.
At this point, I’m willing to say let all the damn Bush cuts expire and let the Rs jusitify the give away starting Jan 4.
Not that they’ll be at all effective, but the Dems still control the Senate. Nominally.
But regardless, right now, the status quo and letting the cuts expire is preferable to continuing the charade that they’ll be a “stimulus” and help those people who need the help
The 2% reduction in payroll taxes is new and will be quite stimulative.
There are so many things wrong with trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, it is hard to know where to start. But let’s consider just one simple point. Tax cuts do not encourage investment, they encourage private consumption. If you think that we have too many bridges and highways, and way too much social security, regulation, and even too much defense, that tax cuts are for you. Go out and by a new flat-screen TV. That is what this debate is about. Obama may be a smart guy, but he doesn’t seem to get the simple things right, and I doubt anyone on his economic staff (the ones who haven’t bailed) does either. This is just tragic. I’s like the Labour Government in the early 30s, which tried to establish its financial credentials by making things worse.
In my view there is not a chance in hell that we will have a consumption-led recovery in the next few years. People will replace their cars, but that doesn’t spur any real growth; it just keeps you in the steady-state. Once people get wind of the plan to cut their social security, they are likely to save more, not spend more. About the only half bright spot is exports, but that mainly affects agricultural products, where the United States does have a real comparative advantage. Other stuff, not so much.
The basic problem is that Bush tried this for eight years and it didn’t work. Job creation sucked, the economy sucked, the Federal deficit doubled. And Bush was the ideal realization of Reaganomics. The same Reaganomics voodoo economics that has been tried for thirty years now, and it just doesn’t work.
Why does President Obama want to continue to try the same basic tax policy that got us in the mess we are in today?
If you look at just the money, this is barely acceptable deal. It has nothing for the 99ers and the estate tax is horrendous. But if you take into account the moral hazard of continually giving the rich and business what they want, it is not so great. HCR and SS are not in this game, as I see it. So I am still not in on it, though I lean that way.
So say you and the Republicans.
It is not stimulative when people use it to pay down debt rather than make more purchases. And in the last 10 quarters, that’s exactly what most households have been doing.
You can buy into the right wing mantra that tax cuts spur the economy all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground. BTW, still calling yourself a Democrat even though you’re repeating right wing Republican ideology? OH WAIT! My bad. That’s right, the Democrats today ARE Republicans. My bad.
“It’s quite simple really: Tax cuts usually lead to higher unemployment. Tax increases usually lead to lower unemployment.“
But not in the pocket of those who most need it and will spend it. Putting money into the pockets of those who already have money and saying that is like saying that when Bill Gates and I are in the same room, our average wealth is in the billions.
The 2% FICA holiday REPLACES the old Make Work Pay tax credit, so it’s not all new. Some folks will get more, and some will get less. If 2% of their social security withholdings are less than $400, then they’ll get less, and obviously the reverse is true.
Not much new there, really.
Also, it’s the beginning of the end of Social Security since they’ll be FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER funding Social Security with general revenues. Once that happens, it’s opened the door to gut it later. I know this, many pundits know this, and even lots of the pols supporting it know this. I suspect you do as well.
Trickle down economics can work for the collective good of a nation provided those with significant capital can’t avoid taxes with off shore accounts, can’t move production to another country or are prevented from similar activities that move the money they have accrued outside of the nation in which they were allowed to extract it. As soon as the owning class can avoid taxes and move capital and production outside their home nation, trickle down economic policies become a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth upward. Because the US is not a “closed” economy wherein trickle down might work as it is sold to the citizenry, can we all start calling this bullshit “trickle up economics”?
In the first example of what a family making $75,000 might do with their $2,000 tax return, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the very rich (banks, investment firms) to have them put that money toward paying interest on debt and making sure they’re making mortgage payments?
In re “The most powerful country on the planet cannot do anything itself. It outsources everything, including job creation.”
This seems to be the typical final stage of most empires, where few things are domestically produced and the economy is primarily one of finance and war (e.g. Spain, Netherlands, Britain). Obama and those he represents are probably just trying to extract as much wealth from the nation as it can before the edifice crumbles. And judging by their actions, they don’t give a shit about that family making $75,000.
How did one guy working with the other party to undermine his own base become defined as ‘bipartisan’?
It replaces it with a reduction in the payroll tax that in the aggregate is much bigger. And, yes individuals making less than $20,000 and couples making less than $40,000 will get less than they would have under the Making Work Pay Credit. For the hundredth time, I know that. It isn’t right. It should be fixed. That, however, doesn’t take away from the fact that this aspect of the deal in the aggregate is stimulative.
At best it seems that the “deal” may have a small stimulative effect. What seems to be the bigger issue is that the “deal” trades the potential for this small, inefficient, short term benefit for a more probable, costlier, long term detriment.
Obama is a mediocre conventionalist. Gift of gab, yes, brilliant, no. He isn’t even smart enough to realize he’s over-exposed. His Illinois senate colleagues knew him as a man who liked to hear himself talk and now that there’s no one who can tell him to shut up, he’s ON. Does anyone listen to him, anymore? I never did because he always struck me as phony baloney and I can’t stand his style, so everlastingly full of himself I expect one of these days he’ll float up and away, still talking. Wouldn’t that be a sight, Obama as a real life Macy’s parade balloon!
The old dem deal is not even on the table any longer and no one thinks you can change what is on the table now in any material way. so the real alternative is this or the expiration of all the tax cuts. I get the feeling we are talking about three deals here. there are only two. We should drop the old dem proposal and talk about changing this one, if that’s what’s needed. (but lots of luck with that)
Ah, but in this environment of pervasive lying by insiders running byzantine international systems of which we’ve have a few precious glimpses of their true operation sometimes provided by a few WikiLeaks, let us ask ourselves what the central governments/multi-national corporations may be doing with the horded wealth of We The People and what may be the chief character of that “private consumption” (my bold)?
(excerpt from “Secret Banking Derivative Cabal Redux, And Why HFT In CDS Has So Far Been A Failure, [link: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/secret-banking-derivative-cabal-redux-and-why-hft-cds-has-so-far-been-failure ])
I was musing to myself on CDSs in India and China as that’s where the MOTU appear to be having a feeding frenzy. I have been following it superficially but did see these:
“Indianomics: Credit Default Swaps in India” (video, Aug 9, 2010)
“Chinese Banks Give First Yuan Credit-Default Swap Price Guidance” (Bloomberg News, Nov. 04, 2010)
*Dodd-Frank Bill (as in “How to Play the ‘DONK’ Financial Bill“)
And, it avoids the sharp contractive impact of no deal.
I won’t argue a whole lot with that,except that the stimulative effect is estimated at over one point in GDP.
The key word is “we.” I suspect the answer to your question is that Obama and the many others who require millions to run successful political campaigns work for those who benefit from these policies . . . ?
However, these tax cuts are an extension of existing policy (aside from the payroll tax cut), so we are getting “stimulus” now and yet this is where we are at with nearly 10% unemployment as reported in the U-3.
The thing is that it’s not that simply. It’s a question of whether or not the payroll tax cut itself is a threat to Social Security not just a question of whether or not the tax cut is efficient.
There is nothing in this tax cut bill that will make me want to hire new help.
I’ll hire help when demand picks up ie when the phone is ringing and right now it ain’t.
I don’t see how this is gonna have much of a stimulative effect, I would think that retaining the rates for the upper 2% would be counter stimulative.
This is 60b per year down a rat hole and a temporary tax cut that will never end.
I feel they should all expire. I think it is a zero sum game as far as how much Bush Tax Cuts are extended and how much of an increased threat to Social Security and Medicare there is.
Why do so many “Dems” give the proven false “trickle down” theory validity with arguments like “it’s stimulative” or “it’s contractive if not done” after the last eight years of nothing but tax cuts?
That’s ALL that’s in this deal, except for the UI extension. And everytime in the past we’ve gotten the UI extension without giving away the farm. Tax cuts. And we’ve had 9 years of tax cuts of which the net result is a LOSS of several hundred thousand private sector jobs.
Tax cuts DO NOT WORK. They’ve been proven NOT to work. Time and time again proven. Yet folks who call themselves “Democrats” use the same language as the right wing when they’re talking about this issue.
Hmmm, what was that old saying?? If it talks like a duck…. If it talks like a right winger…..
I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
So why have the Democrats been bashing the Bush Tax Cut for years saying that it was bad policy if it is in reality so effective – were they all this time putting their partisan interests above that of what is best for the economy? I feel like there is major revisionist history going on where what was once white is now black. It’s hard to square the years of hearing how badly Bush policies were harming our economy to now hearing a 180 of how Bush has been saving our economy.
I call it “Droplet
Trickle-Down” as I think it gives a better picture as the insiders don’t want folks to know the true size of the financial gulf between us and them. So, in other words, We are The Poor dicussed for humanitarian efforts that should take place in our own country: “The Banker.”I’m with you.
Money collected in the form of taxes is money spent, governments spend the tax dollars they collect, thereby stimulating the economy.
ps tell this to a righty and watch his head explode
Now, what is the best way to kill off programs you don’t like, something about starving the beast?
Trickle down is just a semi polite way of saying “getting p*ss’d on”
I’m telling ya, it really is bizarre. I mean WTF?
And to see it here?? Wow. Just wow.
I’d bet money that an awful lot of the same folks here who are defending the tax cuts as stimulative weren’t that into them when Bush proposed them.
The info is out there everyone. Plot the top tax rates over time, and plot unemployment over time. The last time I checked, there was a slight correlation. A very slight one, perhaps statistically insignificant, but a slight one. BUT IT WAS A SLIGHT NEGATIVE CORRELATION.
Geez, can’t we have some consistency here. If you claimed Bush was wrong when he cut all of those taxes, then you should say the same thing about Obama.
Oh nevermind. I’ve already seen how that play works out when the same ones that screamed loudly and often about Bush using torture, and warrentless wiretapping, and ending habeas corpus are, now that Obama is doing ALL of those things (including assassinating American citizens without due process), eerily silent.
Party over policy. It’s not just a Republican trait. Who knew?
Yep.
Both for humanitarian reasons as well as for reasons of good economic policy reasons, I believe we need to do more to help with the social safety net (I put that above infrastructure spending and everything else). I believe it is helping out the 99ers, food stamps, etc that goes to the poorest people that is both the most humanitarian as well as the most stimulative since they need that money to live and spend it immediately instead of tucking it away. I can see public works programs as good that give people a job (like doing forest service work, neighborhood clean-up, etc) that are human resource intensive rather than product intensive so that way that money goes to the people who need it the most who will then immediately spend it.
Zero net job creation ’01 – ’09
This is so important. Let’s use masaccio’s number for family income of $75K. A two percent cut in paycheck deductions would be $1,500 per year, not $2,000. How much bigger would each paycheck be? $28.84 per week, or $57.69 biweekly or $125 a month. If the same family would really get back $2K per year just in smaller paycheck deductions, it’s worth $38.46 a week, or $76.92 biweekly or $166.66 a month.
$29 or $38 bucks a week. $125 or $167 bucks a month. Not stimulating. Especially not if families use it to pay down credit cards, to make sure they meet the mortgage, or to cover higher local taxes made necessary by the complete disappearance of federal support for states.
But the aggregate drain on the Social Security trust fund resulting from a 2% cut in FICA contributions has been worked out by others to be a 32% cut in funding for Social Security. About $120 Billion if the payroll tax holiday lasts two years.
Unemployment insurance is hugely stimulative because the recipient by definition would go from zero to an average of $300 per week ($15,600 yearly), which works out to $1,300 a month.
Given household deleveraging is likely to stay for several more years tax cuts aren’t going to be stimulative.
Added government debt should be happening on the spending side, not the revenue side. Adding debt by building and repairing infrastructure will stimulate the economy. Adding debt by decreasing taxes won’t. Austan Goolsbee should be explaining this on the whitehouse whiteboard, not claiming republican stimulus priorities as Obama priorities.
It’s not even a close question. Net new job formation has been negative since 1999. More than ten years, during which we have “benefitted” from two massive Shrub tax giveaways, primarily to benefit the oligarchs.
sorry, our posts crossed. good work to get the link in here.
(excerpt from “The Wall Street Pentagon Papers: Biggest Scam In World History Exposed: Are The Federal Reserve’s Crimes Too Big To Comprehend?” by David DeGraw, The Public Record, Dec 10th, 2010)
Excellent, Fractal. Keep it coming.
correct. The White House does not even claim that the taxcut bonuses for the jillionaires will be a stimulus. Goolsbee repeatedly admits the bonuses should not be in the deal, “that won’t work” to create jobs, etc.
We need to escape the frame-up by the White House (WH).
WH: FICA cut is good for job growth: bullshit. Delete it.
WH: UI extension is very stimulative: TRUE. Double it, extend for TWO years, include 99ers.
WH: estate-tax giveaway is “holy grail” for GOP: bullshit. Costs $46 Billion over 2 years. Delete it.
WH: taxcut bonuses for oligarchs is “holy grail” for GOP: maybe. Costs $700 Billion over 2 years. Balloons deficit.
WH: tax rise for middle-class would be unfair: maybe. Costs $3.2 TRILLION over 2 years. Drives deficit and national debt out of control.
Book Salon up with Billy ‘Wimsatt’s Please Don’t Bomb the Suburbs: A Midterm Report on My Generation and the Future of Our Super Movement hosted by Josh Bolotsky
Just 2 weeks ago, Obama froze federal workers pay out of deficit concerns.
Once the tax cuts are passed, austerity and deficit hysteria will be back. Any stimulus effect of this bill will be wiped out within weeks after the new session starts with cuts to social programs and infrastructure spending.
If our government hasn’t yet seen the fallacy in the myth of “trickle down” economics and the “free market” philosophy then there’s absolutely no hope. We’re all freaking doomed. And that’s no bulls*t.
Tax cuts for billionaires are an anti-stimulous.
Billionaires won’t spend the extra cash, they’ll invest it in jacking up the rents on the rest of society.
That’s great information. What should happen is that we all go to work for the government and then they give us enough money for whatever we really need and then they spend the rest to stimulate the economy. Has any country ever tried that?
Actually, the 2% reduction in FICA is an attack on Social Security’s funding and it’s doubtful that once instituted will be rescinded, in spite of what Obama says.
Makes NO F-ing sense to de-fund a program they say will be insolvent, unless they want to increase its “insolvency”. I don’t trust Obama to do anything for regular people. I suspect he’s looking to enact the catfood commission’s recommendations under the table.