31 House Dems break ranks with Obama, demand tax breaks for all

soundoff (8 Responses)

1. ArnoldoB
   

   Pay cuts for congress and the president isn't even a pinky nail fragment. Cutting spending in the midst of a crushing recession is a recipe for prolonging and worsening the downturn. Ideally the government should run a surplus during good times so it has the flexibility to respond by helping to support demand during bad times without running crippling deficits. Sadly some fool gave away the surplus in tax cuts heavily skewed to the wealthy.

   September 17, 2010 at 9:35 am |
2. sher
   

   While tax cuts may look like a good iidea on paper, in reality it really won't do anything to change the economy. There needs to be a larger overhaul of big government, spending cuts, pay cuts for Senators/Congressmen and yes even the President. I highly doubt anymore stimulus packages are going to make a difference. It is time that the middle and lower classes got a break and the higher class took a big enough hit to make them more empathetic to the issues that are facing everyday Americans.

   September 17, 2010 at 8:24 am |
3. ArnoldoB
   

   It's simply true that tax cuts are the least efficient means of stimulating the economy when they're heavily skewed to the wealthiest. Those in the upper brackets are more likely to save it tax cuts because they don't need the money for day to day expenses. If the GOP really were interested in helping the economy you could take the money from the Bush era tax cuts and re-work into a a refundable tax credit directed to those who would quickly spend it in the lower and middle tax brackets, then phase it out. You'd get direct economic stimulus followed by deficit reduction. Sadly I'm certain there no real interest in either reviving the economy or reducing the structural deficits from those mostly likely to cream the loudest about it.

   September 17, 2010 at 8:12 am |
4. joe bob
   

   $250,000 sounds pretty rich to me compared to my $45,000. I really don't feel very sorry for you Paul. Honestly, I think the tax cuts should expire for evryone.

   September 17, 2010 at 7:48 am |
5. Paul G
   

   10 years ago $250,000 was worth a bunch more. Obama can't make up his mind of those making more than $250,000 are "the rich", "millionaires", or those who are "not middle class" (those making less). Funny thing is that above $250,000 is a HUGE range. If the "compromise" (unheard of in Washington lately) was to add another bracket or MOVE the $250,000 say to $500,000, (or $1M to keep Obama's "millionaire comments honest), maybe even to adjust it for inflation, then maybe it wouldn't be such a drastic thing and some taxes could be collected from the "truly rich" but those with mortgages and inflation riddled salaries could continue to have some spending money in their pockets. I for one will NOT dip into my savings to sustain spending no matter what the Obama economists think I will/should do.

   September 16, 2010 at 8:02 pm |
6. Chuck Thomas
   

   Responding to Dan, the present economic conditions took a long time to develop. The corrective measures, a.k.a TARP and other so-called stimuli, have put a brake on the credit crunch and the economic downslide. But many non-partisan economists think the infusion of Federal money has been too small. This state of things is severe and it will take more time to dig out. The former administration set an anti-regulatory stage that benefited the very rich and powerful–this is factual. There were two seats on the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bush refused to fill for something like two years. If there had been regulatory oversight (like the recent Financial Regulatory bill that was signed into law) between 2000 and 2007, much of what happened with Wall Street would not have been allowed to happen. The SEC was almost totally under GOP control when most of the crash-causing activity happened.

   September 16, 2010 at 2:35 pm |
7. nick
   

   Dan is a moron, Bush set the groundwork for the recession
   after EIGHT years

   obama in 2 years.

   so come see me after 4 years – then you can talk

   September 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm |
8. Dan
   

   I am not registered with either party, I vote for the candidate, not the party.
   But, one thing we haven't heard from anyone is, yes, Bush was in office; however, Democrats have controlled both houses since Jan 2007, , almost 4 years, and ALL 3 (1 executive and 2 legislative) branches since Jan 2009, almost 2 years. Things have gotten much worse in the last 3-4 years.
   So why is there so much continual blame on the former administration, when in fact the Democrats have had control?
   If 31 Democrats break ranks with the Pres, what does that say?

   September 16, 2010 at 11:04 am |