Not your average tea party

Media — By on April 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm

You’ve probably heard by now that tomorrow, April 15, thousands of activists will gather in meeting places all over the country to protest today’s quickly rising tax rates. I’ll be at one of these events, and will discuss it afterward live on Talk from the Heart with Rich Buhler around 4:00 p.m. or so. If you’re in Southern California, you can tune in on AM 740, call letters KBRT. Otherwise, you can listen to the live streaming here.

If you want to attend a Tea Party event but can’t, you can still participate – and it’ll only take you a minute. Text the word “Tea Party” to 74362 to sign a mobile petition that will be sent to your Representatives, and to have information about further events sent directly to your phone. (See here for more information.) ‘


Tags:
  • http://prozacstan.blogspot.com/ Stan McCullars

    I’ll be at the one in Orlando.
    I guess that makes me a right-wing extremist.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/ Reaganite Republican Resistance

    It’s not out-of-the-question that the 2009 Tea Party participants could someday be regarded by history as patriots who made a difference- same as 1773. This sort of public outrage might be just what’s needed to break through the media’s manufactured reality.
    And you can believe that Obama and the left are plenty scared of the TEA party movement- how else to explain the dubious timing of his “everything is under control” speech on the economy, and (on the same day before the protests) the DHS report warning of “right-wing” radicals and their propensity to violence?
    Barack Obama is rapidly liquidating everything that made this country great… and needs to be put back-on-his-heels with a major embarrassment that puts an end to the myth that everybody just loves Barack and his wacked-out agenda… because millions of us DON’T.
    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    today’s quickly rising tax rates
    Tax rates have fallen but don’t let reality spoil your party.

  • T

    Be on guard for Leftist infiltrators.
    Luckily, they will stand out, as their only conception of normal Americans is so over-the-top.
    More here:
    http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-fascism-comes-to-america-it-will.html

  • T

    >>Tax rates have fallen but don’t let reality spoil your party.
    Reality is future taxation from massive debt.
    Screwing your grandkids with future taxes is much worse. Do you support screwing your grandkids?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Reality is future taxation from massive debt.
    Yet another person who magically came into existince on 1/20/2009. If you’re talking about the stimulus then you’re talking about a relatively trivial portion of the debt (and one that is probably self-financing given the multiplier). If you’re not talking about the stimulus, then what are you talking about? Do you even know?

  • T

    I suppose you must be rich to consider it “trivial.”
    How is it self-financing again?
    Perhaps I am talking about all government spending, and that of the Fed.
    Do YOU know what you are talking about, or are you just here to copy talking points from the financial elite?

  • Reality Based Community Organizer

    Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation:
    “…over the next 10 years that Obama proposed in his budget are not George Bush’s deficits. They are the deficits that Obama has proposed, resulting from the $1 trillion in increased spending he adopted in the no-stimulus stimulus bill, and the $400 billion supplemental spending bill he supported and also adopted the following week, and the $275 billion housing bailout he proposed the next week, and the $1 trillion bank bailout plan his Treasury Secretary just proposed this week, and the $638 billion he has proposed as a “downpayment” on a new national health insurance entitlement. The health insurance plan will be the most expensive entitlement of all — serious estimates are that it will cost at least $1.2 trillion or more. Does this sound like he is “doing everything we can to reduce that deficit?”
    The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest EVER.
    Under the Obama budget, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the national debt will more than double over the next 10 years from 40% of GDP today to a shocking 82%!”

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    How is it self-financing again?
    Multiplier….when the economy is depressed $1 in gov’t spending will increase GDP by some amount. In simple textbooks the multiplier is 1 divided by the marginal propensity to save. So if people tend to save 10% of their income the multiplier would be 10 so $1 would yield an increase in GDP of $10. In real life a lot of things intervene to make the actual multiplier much lower, many estimates are slightly over 1 so GDP goes up by, say, $1.05 or $1.10. Nonetheless, GDP is higher than it would have otherwise been which makes long run growth higher which basically means over the long run the debt burden is less. The multiplier disappears when you have the economy running at full employment.
    Anyway, even if you don’t want to buy that tell me again why the $1T in stimulus has got you all frazzled when the other $6-7T came and went with hardly a peep?
    Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation:
    over the next 10 years that Obama proposed in his budget are not George Bush’s deficits.
    Well actually they are. Bush pushed through the drug benefit for Medicare and all deficits associated with that are properly considered his. Saying they are Obama’s is like saying all spending on the Iraq war post 1/20/09 is Obama’s.
    The $638 for health insurance is offset by the revenue from cap-n-trade. You can carp that’s its a tax increase but you said your objection wasn’t current taxes but your grandchildren’s taxes from borrowing. So you should be happy to see spending offset with taxes.
    The health insurance plan will be the most expensive entitlement of all —
    $638B over ten years is $63.8B per year. SSI & Medicare out do that several times each year.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    are you just here to copy talking points from the financial elite?
    Ahhh yes. I love people whose understanding of politics and economics is based on a cartoon world of heros and villians.

  • T

    The “Keynesian multiplier” is about as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. See here:
    http://mises.org/story/1889
    http://mises.org/story/1118
    >>when the other $6-7T came and went with hardly a peep
    I made peeps then too. Shame on you for assuming.
    >>Bush pushed through the drug benefit
    The first CEO rips off a company. Another CEO is installed, rips off more. Your response: “But the other guy did it!”
    >>you said your objection wasn’t current taxes but your grandchildren’s taxes from borrowing
    Actually I’m concerned about both. But thanks again for assuming.
    >>cartoon world of heros and villians
    It is the same world of magical “multipliers”? If so, that’s YOUR world, bub.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    The “Keynesian multiplier” is about as real as the …
    You cite just about the only school of thought in economics that believes this. I won’t say they are cranks but they are pretty borderline. Do you have any evidence that having the gov’t adopt a pro-cyclical stance ever worked?

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick

    Tea Parties = Code Pink for Righties.

  • T

    >>I won’t say they are cranks but they are pretty borderline.
    They predicted this crisis, didn’t they? What credibility do the other schools have, given their direct culpability in the meltdown?
    >>Do you have any evidence that having the gov’t adopt a pro-cyclical stance ever worked?
    What do you mean “ever worked.” Business cycles happen, like weather. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existance of something coming from nothing.

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    They predicted this crisis, didn’t they?
    Possibly, so did a lot of people like Nicholas Taleb (see his infamous footnote in The Black Swan) and there’s a wonderful montage of Peter Schiff pieces on CNBC & Fox where the usual financial chatters like Ben Stein try to imply he is insane for saying financial stocks are set for a big crash. Unfortunately it seems Schiff made no money for his clients despite calling it right…don’t know how Taleb did but Michael Lewis’s book Panic has a profile of a hedge fund manager who shorted mortgages big time and raked in over a billion for himself.
    But do a search on ‘housing bubble’ or debt bubble and you’ll get millions of hits going back decades. It’s not very impressive to call a bubble. Calling when it will pop is more important. Even more important is being able to explain why some popping bubbles don’t seem to cause any economy wide damage (like the internet bubble) and others do.
    What do you mean “ever worked.” Business cycles happen, like weathe.r.
    I think its pretty obvious. What evidence or theory do you have to support the assertion that adopting a pro-cyclical policy by gov’t ameliorates the business cycle.

  • linds

    Where were these tea parties when the Bush administration was vastly expanding executive and federal power over the other two branches as well as state governments? Where was Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s ‘we shall secede’ moment when the Bush administration hid military expenditures from the national budget? Where were the tea party protesters when the Republicans used our money to wage ill-advised wars overseas and grant money to the very people who crashed our economic system?
    I’ll believe the libertarian rhetoric when it’s consistent. Then I’ll be the first to toss tea into Boston Harbor (but loose leaf only – tea bags are so anachronistic!)

  • ucfengr

    and one that is probably self-financing given the multiplier
    If there truly was a multiplier then the countries with the highest government spending as a percentage of GDP would have the fastest growing economies. Where is the evidence that this is occurring?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Well the party is over, hope you all had fun. I caught some of it on TV. I saw a few large signs that equated Obama to Hitler (one very tasteful sign compared American taxpayers in Obama’s America to Jews in Hitler’s ovens….classy). Most of the signs and statements I saw (and I didn’t make watching them an all day event) were pretty respectable. Protesting, even astroturfish protesting, is as American as applie pie.
    I do think the Hilter signs served a useful purpose. The right has lost their moral standing to complain about the ‘Bushitler’ slogans of the left. They also no longer have any standing to complain about ancedotal incidents that might happen at left-wing protests….say someone snatching a giant foam cross from someone trying to infilitrate a protest…. Don’t worry, I’ve already made my report to my overlords in the ‘financial elite’. The database has been updated!

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    If there truly was a multiplier then the countries with the highest government spending as a percentage of GDP would have the fastest growing economies. Where is the evidence that this is occurring?
    The multiplier is most potent when an economy is slacking off and less effective when it approaches full employment. The analogy I like is a candy bar. If someone is having a low blood sugar attack, candy will put them back on the level pretty quickly. Eating lots of candy, though, when nothing is wrong tends to hurt your overall health in the long run. Basically you’re taking the idle resources and putting them to work. If an economy doesn’t have many idle resources you’re pushing inflation only.
    There is, however, the fact that recessions have been less harsh and growth bigger since the Great Depression and the increase in gov’t spending….even considering this depression. I don’t think anyone believes this is a linear relationship where the more spending leads to more growth and stability no matter what. There is almost certainly diminishing returns that set in otherwise you would get the effect you are talking about.

  • smmtheory

    Tax rates have fallen but don’t let reality spoil your party.

    What tax rates have fallen? The only thing I’ve seen falling is the withholding rate. My tax rate stayed the same. My earnings stayed the same. Did you get fooled by Congress into thinking that the withholding rate was the same as the tax rate?

  • ucfengr

    The multiplier is most potent when an economy is slacking off and less effective when it approaches full employment.
    How does that explain the US in the 1930’s? During that period we had massive increases in government spending and almost nothing to show for it.
    There is, however, the fact that recessions have been less harsh and growth bigger since the Great Depression
    I think using the Great Depression as the baseline for economic recessions is fallacious. It’s a little like using Bill Gates as a baseline for determining poverty rates.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    What tax rates have fallen? The only thing I’ve seen falling is the withholding rate. My tax rate stayed the same. My earnings stayed the same. Did you get fooled by Congress into thinking that the withholding rate was the same as the tax rate?
    The tax rate has changed as well. The cut is in the payroll taxes and it is in the rate. If it wasn’t you’d have to make up for the ‘under-withholding’ at the end of the year when you file your 2009 tax returns.
    How does that explain the US in the 1930’s? During that period we had massive increases in government spending and almost nothing to show for it.
    Increases in gov’t spending were modest from 1930-37 (esp. when you offset Federal spending with declining spending in state & local budgets). Nonetheless unemployment dropped sharply until 1937 when concerns about deficits cut back fiscal stimulus which resulted in another steep drop. The two policies that ultimately resulted in escaping the GD were monetary stimulus (in the form of getting off the gold standard which resulted in ‘printing money’….this was by far the most effective…there’s a graph or chart out there somewhere which shows how long the depression lasted in various countries, almost perfectly it shows that the longer they stayed on the standard the longer their depression) and fiscal stimulus with the start of WWII.
    I think using the Great Depression as the baseline for economic recessions is fallacious. It’s a little like using Bill Gates as a baseline for determining poverty rates.
    It’s actually a baseline for measuring the pre-Depression era which was marked by very limited gov’t spending and the modern one which is. I’m not comparing recessions to the GD since none of them can hold a candle to the GD. But T’s ‘question’ was:

    What do you mean “ever worked.” Business cycles happen, like weather. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existance of something coming from nothing.

    If the modern policy ideas don’t work then why are Depressions so rare and the post-Great Depression recessions so minor? Before 1930 ‘recessions’ looked more like the Great Depression than they looked like our relatively mild modern recessions.

  • smmtheory

    The tax rate has changed as well. The cut is in the payroll taxes and it is in the rate. If it wasn’t you’d have to make up for the ‘under-withholding’ at the end of the year when you file your 2009 tax returns.

    Which is exactly what happened.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    No it isn’t, I suggest you review http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/31/pf/taxes/making_work_pay_credit/
    The payroll tax cut is $400 per person, $800 per couple. The withholding was changed so the money goes into your pocket now as opposed to waiting until you file 2009 taxes in 2010 to get it in a refund.
    Second Bush’s tax cutes are set to expire in 2011. The cuts for the lowest bracket are extended. Since this is a Bush tax increase cutting it is an Obama tax cut.

  • smmtheory

    No it isn’t, I suggest you review

    And you would know so much better than me what tax rate I’ve been paying, right?

    The payroll tax cut is $400 per person, $800 per couple. The withholding was changed so the money goes into your pocket now as opposed to waiting until you file 2009 taxes in 2010 to get it in a refund.

    It’s easy to see that Congress has pulled the wool over your eyes with respect to withholding schedules being the same as tax. Don’t feel too bad about it though. They fooled most everybody else too.

    Second Bush’s tax cutes are set to expire in 2011. The cuts for the lowest bracket are extended. Since this is a Bush tax increase cutting it is an Obama tax cut.

    Hogwash, pure hogwash. You really expect me to believe it was President Bush’s idea back in 2001 to have the tax cuts expire? It’s easy to see that Congress has pulled the wool over your eyes about that too! Now that President Bush is OUT of office, any failure BY CONGRESS to extend those tax cuts is NOT his fault. So, do I need to remind you that Congress is now a majority of Democrats? Do I need to remind you that they’ve been in the majority since 2006? If they are still in the majority in 2011 when and if the tax cuts expire, it will be a Democrat Congress increasing taxes. If any tax increases or has increased since 2006, it was due to a Democrat Congress. Cigarette taxes increased just this month I believe. Guess who is paying the biggest percentage… the upper income bracket, or the lower?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You really expect me to believe it was President Bush’s idea back in 2001 to have the tax cuts expire?
    Actually it was his idea. The tax cuts were sold as being less expensive because both the CBO and Bush’s budget office had to analyze the proposed law as written. If the law says after X number of years the rates change back to where they were then that is what they must say. Bush hyped his tax cuts as ‘only costing so much’ due to that provision. Your man is out of office so let’s stop trying to give him his cake and let him eat it too. You take both sides of the coin. His bill that he signed lowered and raised taxes. You’re upset that he served you desert when he was in office but saved the spinach for after he got out? Hah, not my problem it took you over 8 years to learn to pay attention!
    Do I need to remind you that they’ve been in the majority since 2006?
    Hey moron, the tax cuts were enacted in 2001 along with their ‘self-destruct’ provision. Like it or not Bush signed a tax increase into law and your Congress passed it. Believe it or not plenty of tax changes have passed in our history without ‘self-destruct’ provisions. Your man did this so don’t try to pretend that the ticking time bomb he left is anyone else’s fault.
    And you would know so much better than me what tax rate I’ve been paying,
    I have no idea what you’re paying and it seems neither do you. You are saying that when you do your 2009 taxes in 2010 you’ll pay $400 more to make up for the withholding decrease you ADMIT to seeing now due to the bill Obama signed. I’ve presented sources to indicate that is not true, you’ve presented nothing in reply. Once again someone on the right spends a lot of effort shooting his mouth off about something and appears to put an even greater amount of effort into remaining as ignorant as possible about what he is talking about. Are you guys trying to play some type of postmodern game or something here?

  • smmtheory

    I say again, do you REALLY expect me to believe it was President Bush’s idea to have the tax cuts expire? It wasn’t him that wrote the Bill was it? He only had what was handed him to work with. You practically said as much.

    I have no idea what you’re paying and it seems neither do you. You are saying that when you do your 2009 taxes in 2010 you’ll pay $400 more to make up for the withholding decrease you ADMIT to seeing now due to the bill Obama signed.

    Hah! Congress has been doing the same old thing for as long as I can remember… adjusting withholding schedules to make the average Rube believe they’re getting a tax break. I’ve probably been paying taxes for almost as long as you’ve been alive if not longer. Congress writes the law, the President signs the law into effect. Before Obama, it was Bush, before that it was Clinton, before that it was Bush the elder, before that it was Reagan, so on and so forth. You just go right ahead and defend your buddies in Congress like they give two cents about you, and you can keep believing the gobbledy-gook you parrot. I’m sure smarter people than me have tried and failed to get you to see the truth. But I’ll say it again, slower this time… at the end of 2009, under the assumption that pay stays the same and my deductions stay the same, my taxes will be the same as I paid at the end of 2008. The difference will be that Congress mucked about with the withholding so that the difference between my taxes and the amount withheld will have to be reconciled. Same tax means it hasn’t gone up or down. I don’t use my withholding as a saving plan though, so it will most likely mean I have to write a bigger check than this year unless I compensate for Congressional meddling.

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Dude this ain’t no mystery, the code is in the public domain and I already provided you with sources on it. You have a $400 tax cut…..well I am assuming you actually have a job.
    I say again, do you REALLY expect me to believe it was President Bush’s idea to have the tax cuts expire?
    Please, even the tax cuts weren’t Bush’s idea but his people(s). Bush proposed it, Bush signed it. Don’t like it? Tough. Deal with it.

  • smmtheory

    Dude this ain’t no mystery, the code is in the public domain and I already provided you with sources on it. You have a $400 tax cut…..well I am assuming you actually have a job.

    Er, yeah, a link to a CNN Money article is not exactly true source material. And that assumption is not the only assumption you are making. Another assumption you are making is that everybody qualifies for the EITC. (What? You weren’t aware that not everybody is eligible for this “tax cut” you’re puffing yourself up about? Color me shocked!) I haven’t ever qualified for it. Many people don’t. The clue is – Congress is hiding something whenever they muck about in the withholding rates.

    Please, even the tax cuts weren’t Bush’s idea but his people(s). Bush proposed it, Bush signed it. Don’t like it? Tough. Deal with it.

    Again, you are being self-contradictory. If the idea wasn’t even his, then why are you blame-storming President Bush? Still can’t shake off that derangement syndrome?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You can try http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/irs-tax-return/5519.html if you want a source that is more focused on taxes. The $400 cut has nothing to do with the EITC, which is a different thing. (But thanks for bringing that up, the phaseout for the EITC is higher so more are eligeable for it).
    There is a phaseout for the payroll tax credit starting at $75K and ending at $95K so it is fair to say that the tax cut does not apply to the entire under $250K crowd.
    Again, you are being self-contradictory. If the idea wasn’t even his, then why are you blame-storming President Bush? Still can’t shake off that derangement syndrome?
    I’m not blaming Bush, only assigning responsibility correctly. Last time I checked, the bill was signed by Bush and there’s no real excuse for him not to have been aware of the sunset provisions. I have no idea why you and your cohort seem to find the concept of it being treated as his bill disturbing.

  • smmtheory

    The $400 cut has nothing to do with the EITC, which is a different thing.

    It would seem that the IRS has a different idea than yours, considering that they supposedly instructed employers to referrence Publication 15-T which is specifically about EITC. But hey, I’m sure you’re way smarter than the IRS, eh?

    I have no idea why you and your cohort seem to find the concept of it being treated as his bill disturbing.

    Try maybe, the way you and your cohort have of continually shifting blame to a convenient and often incorrect target?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    It would seem that the IRS has a different idea than yours, considering that they supposedly instructed employers to referrence Publication 15-T which is specifically about EITC
    The pub’s title is “New Wage withing AND Advance Earned Income Credit Payment Tables”, so I’m not sure how that translates into being ‘specifically about the EITC’, it is about both withholding and the EITC. For example, if you go to page 50 you can see the beginning of tables that combine income, social security and medicare tax withholding.
    You’ve cited nothing that says the payroll tax credit that results in lower withholding now has to be made up in next years tax returns, I’ve cited two sources that say the opposite.
    Try maybe, the way you and your cohort have of continually shifting blame to a convenient and often incorrect target?
    Shifting blame? You mean someone else signed the Bush tax cuts into law? Tell me who was behind this forgery! Have you alerted the FBI!!!!!

  • smmtheory

    Sure, you cited 2 sources that talk about people subject to withholding getting a credit in advance. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t necessarily make your opinion right. How they prove your bald faced assertion that tax rates are going down I don’t know. None of the tax brackets changed their rates downward. All the brackets – 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent tax brackets haven’t changed one iota. Unless Congress acts before 2011, the 10 percent bracket will disappear and the top bracket will escalate back up to 39.6 percent. Yes, I know you will still blame President Bush for that tax increase despite any lack of evidence that he made all those Congress men and women ignore the upcoming deadline. I will enjoy watching what little credibility you might have left totally disappear at that point if you continue your verbal diatribes about the ex-President.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You do understand that payroll taxes are different from Federal Income tax? The $400 refers to the payroll tax credit which results in lower withholding today but does not result in added cost on your 1040. (Most people don’t do anything on their 1040 with payroll taxes unless they had self-employment income or they overpaid payroll taxes….usually due to holding more than one job).
    Yes, I know you will still blame President Bush for that tax increase despite any lack of evidence that he made all those Congress men and women ignore the upcoming deadline
    Since the deadline was not only part of his tax cut’s design but sold as a *feature* it is quite fairly Bush’s responsibility. I’ll point out again that plenty of changes to the tax laws have passed without sunset provisions. Bush served you the desert first and put the spinach into his out years. Learn to cope.
    Right now, even though Bush is out of office, the estate tax is in effect for amounts over $3.5M but in 2010 the tax will be eliminated and then reappear in 2011. Why? Because Bush signed a law that raised the exclusion, then eliminated it and then ‘sunsets’ to revert everything back. Does Obama get credit for the 2010 elimination of the estate tax? By your reasoning he should because he’s in office and in theory he could propose a law eliminating the elimination. I doubt you’d reason that way, though. I’ll be consistent and say Bush deserves responsibility for that tax cut even though it happens after he is gone from office.

  • smmtheory

    Since the deadline was not only part of his tax cut’s design but sold as a *feature* it is quite fairly Bush’s responsibility.

    You are still ignoring the obvious. Where did he supposedly have to “sell” the notion of the bill with a sunset provision, to the public, or to Congress? Who was it that dictated the terms that a sunset provision be included in the bill, the public or Congress? I think maybe the original idea was to make the tax cut permanent, but your buddies in Congress pitched a fit about a permanent tax cut and in order to get Congress to even submit a bill for a tax cut, President Bush had to agree he would sign it if they included the sunset provision. If that was the only way he was able to get Congress to agree to providing a tax cut at all, I can understand why he did it. So the way I see it is that Congress is responsible for the sunset provision fiasco, and you are perfectly content to deflect the blame on President Bush.
    So, there we have it, you were wrong about the tax rates changing. You were wrong about the responsibility for the sunset provision. You were wrong to call a tax credit a tax cut. Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Where did he supposedly have to “sell” the notion of the bill with a sunset provision, to the public, or to Congress?
    To both, why does that matter, though? He was clearly aware of the sunset provisions. Whether he came up with them or some financial analysist twenty steps down or if he agreed to them because Congress wanted to limit the costs it’s pretty hard to say he is not responsible for them. He did sign the bill into law and it’s not like the provisions were some obscure piece of language hidden away. They were well noted by multiple commentators before, during and after the bill was debated and voted on.
    I noticed you dodged the question I posed on the estate tax. Does Obama get credit from you for the estate tax dropping on his watch?
    I think maybe the original idea was to make the tax cut permanent, but your buddies in Congress pitched a fit about a permanent tax cut and in order to get Congress to even submit a bill for a tax cut, President Bush had to agree he would sign it if they included the sunset provision.
    Except that the Congress was controlled by Republicans at the time. But the point remains. Say you’re going to have a $500B tax cut. You can make that tax cut really minor, like $20B a year but go for 25 years (essentially forever since the tax code never goes that long without changes) or you can do a huge $250B a year for two years. Instead of opting for the long run but less noticeable tax cut, Bush opted to grab the bigger but more temporary tax cut that would expire, surprise suprise, after he left office.
    AND the political back and forth here still doesn’t matter. If Bush only could get a temporary tax cut then that’s all he got. He doesn’t get credit for achieving a perm. tax cut if he didn’t do it. Maybe it wasn’t his fault. Maybe everyone else is to blame. Big deal, at the end of the day he signed a temp. tax cut. The quarterback doesn’t get the superbowl ring just because his pass was perfect and the other guy fumbled it.
    I’m a bit surprised that you are stunned politicians behave this way. In fact, it’s not even politicians but human behavior. Passing the buck to the next guy is as old as time itself. I can only think your amazement stems from your inability to comprehend that your savior, George W Bush, could do anything bad. Well welcome to your reality check.
    So, there we have it, you were wrong about the tax rates changing. You were wrong about the responsibility for the sunset provision. You were wrong to call a tax credit a tax cut. Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
    1. You’ve demonstrated nothing about tax rates.
    2. I’m right about the sunset provision.
    3. Credit=cut. Either way a person who has a job pays less in taxes than he would have sans the stimulus bill.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Look I’m fair about this. I have no problem with Bush claiming credit for his temporary tax cut and even for the estate tax elimination that is also temporary but happens under Obama’s term. I believe Bush even had some perm. tax cuts, possibly the tax cut on corporate dividend income. So he can fairly claim credit for that too.
    But fair is fair, if you get credit for a temporary tax cut you also get the credit/blame for the tax increase that ends it. You want Bush to have his cake and eat it too. Not going to happen.

  • smmtheory

    I’m a bit surprised that you are stunned politicians behave this way.

    And you think I’m clueless. Hint: I’m not stunned by anything politicians do. Look, I can see you will not admit that you were wrong about the tax rates falling. And I can see you will not admit you didn’t have any evidence for your assertion that President Bush intended the tax cuts to expire, but you really ought to drop the projection you are making on why I dig into you for bashing Bush. I’ve heard projection is unhealthy.

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    1. By preserving the lower tax rates, Obama is cutting taxes. The status quo before Obama raises those rates.
    1.5 I notice you’ve constructed a nice little ‘heads I win tails you lose’ set of rules for Obama. If he allows a Bush tax cut to expire he is at fault. If he extends a Bush tax cut all glory belongs to Bush. At any point do people like you believe in taking any responsibility for your actions? Any?
    2. If Bush didn’t intend for those rates to expire then he is an idiot. He proposed a law that had them expire, he fought for such a law, and he happily signed it when it passed. If you’re seriously going to argue that this was unintentional then you’re essentially saying Bush was unaware of one of the most ignorant of one of the most relevant sections of what is probably the third major policy of his two terms (the first two being Iraq and the Medicare Drug program)

  • smmtheory

    I notice you’ve constructed a nice little ‘heads I win tails you lose’ set of rules for Obama.

    No, that’s the game you enjoy playing. As evidenced by the paragraph you followed up with. Again, you’re projecting. I’ve not stated one way or the other whether I would blame or credit Obama for an outcome pursued by Congress. A U.S. President has enough opportunity for making mistakes without being made the head scapegoat for Congress or whichever party he belongs to. Take for instance Obama bowing so deeply to the Saudi King after he kept a really stiff back toward the Queen of the U.K. That was a big mistake! I can’t recall hearing one way or another whether he took ownership of that one, do you?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    OK, so the tax increase is the fault of George Bush and the Republican Congress that passed it.
    Happy>?