Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

7 Bumps

If the Republicans want to change or revoke what the Obama Administration has done on the premisis that if it's not working, it's got to be changed. . .

then why are they so gung-ho to keep the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, when they haven't stimulated the economy the way the Bush Administration claimed they would? Wouldn't it make sense to keep the ones that help small businesses, retirement and the working poor and middle class (much the same thing, these days) and let the ones for the upper class expire? There is no proof that the tax cuts for the wealthy have done anything to help our economy.

 
jsbenkert

Asked by jsbenkert at 8:36 PM on Nov. 8, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 37 (89,331 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (51)
  • I asked this last week and heard crickets-nada-nothing. Also, if so many are concerned about that deficit that they might be passing on to their kids and grandkids, why wouldn't they EAGERLY be jumping at the chance to do everything they personally can to help remedy the situation? Lip service only, and a solution is only palatable if affects the "other" guy, but not me or my pocketbook- Plenty of time for those tax cuts to create jobs and stimulate the economy-find a different excuse-

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 8:47 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • we can NOT afford more tax cuts, they need to be allowed to expire.
    autodidact

    Answer by autodidact at 11:14 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • I am one of those evil wealthy people. I will give you my perspective.

    How can we honestly say the tax cuts didn't work? How are you measuring it? They worked for me. We had money to squirrel away and I used it to start a business. That business now makes more than $300K a year. I have sinced purchased 2 more. The money we squirreled away has created more than 20 jobs...11 of them paying almost $20 an hour. I am looking to hire another person that will start at $15...she doesn't need any experience..just a willingness to learn the job and be a reliable employee.

    When you look at the tax cuts as a positive you must also look at the negatives that worked against it. Housing regulations are the source of the downturn of the economy, this has nothing to do with the tax cuts. You must also consider state and employment taxes were on the rise..these things weigh against the success of the cuts.

    cont..
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 9:05 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • They don't want't the tax cuts to expire because big business is who the repubs care about not the average american. It did nothing the first time but get us into a big hole that we are in now. It was proven not to work, but people think it's a bad thing because thats what they push down their throat, and people go along with it. It's laughable that you can cry about the deficit in one breath, and want the tax cuts in that same breath. It's such hypocrisy. It didn't work when Bush did isn't that enough evidence for you..
    mommom2000

    Answer by mommom2000 at 9:07 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • You also have to consider the effects of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that occurred when Clinton was in office. We started to feel the measure of these during Bush's term and it continues into Obama's. It is a sad situation when the US govt will give contract preference to a foreign country for foreign made goods. IMO, govt contracts should go to US companies using American workers.

    I am in favor of some tax changes. Everyone should pay something...even if it is just $10 because we all use services.

    My career was in banking and I was a trust officer for a number of years. The richest of the rich will NEVER pay taxes like people are hoping because the money is in assets, not cash rolling through the door every year.

    Targeting people making just $250,000 a year puts a target on the backs of small business. Instead of targeting them, let's ask them what they need to create more jobs.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 9:10 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • OP, your figures ^^^^ are incrrect. I posted info from the IRS that refuted the 2% amount some time ago. I'll see if I can find the link. What part of my answers didn't you understand? I am representative of small business here in the US and I am in several business organizations. We are all facing the same problems. Why are you trying to discount the people who actually create jobs?
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 10:23 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • yourspecial - your article doesn't say that it isn't less then 3%, it ays it's not the number to be concerned with. They say it brings in48% of the income to people making over 250,000. In those figures are not only small business that hire people, it also includes very wealthy people that open up an s corp to save on taxes like pro athletes, actors, attorneys, hedge funders, the billionaire you all hate George Soros fall in this category. So while it may make up 48% it doesn't mean it's a small business that will be hiring people.

    mommom2000

    Answer by mommom2000 at 10:50 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • This article makes a lot of sense as to why Obama's "fix' didn't work for the economy, it wasn't supposed to… but it worked great for those who made $$$, as usual, by design, of course...


    http://www.openmarket.org/2010/04/23/obama-uses-phony-rhetoric-about-financial-reform-to-push-bill-that-enriches-special-interests-and-perpetuates-bailouts/


     

    agentwanda

    Answer by agentwanda at 7:20 AM on Nov. 9, 2010

  • the bottom line is if you increase taxes on the wealthy there will be no significant job growth

    and wealthy is defined in these tax cuts as family of 4 making over 210K thats not wealthy that's comfortably working hard
    MELRN

    Answer by MELRN at 8:46 PM on Nov. 8, 2010

  • After the recession in 2001 and the first round of tax cuts, economic growth speeded up and is expected to pickup even faster in 2004:3

    * The real annual GDP growth rate increased from 0.3 percent in 2001 to 2.5 percent in 2002.
    * In the third quarter of 2003, GDP grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate.
    * Forecasters are expecting GDP to grow by 4.6 percent in 2004, the highest in 20 years.
    * 2003 and 2004 economic growth levels surpassed Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates by 150 basis combined, resulting in $300 billion of additional growth, which is roughly $2,500 per household.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 9:10 PM on Nov. 8, 2010