Skip to main content

Barack Obama decides that tax increases for the "wealthy" can be postponed


As reported in the Kansas City Star:

Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."


So let's get this straight: Senator Obama planned to pay for his middle-class tax cuts by raising taxes on anyone making over $250,000/year. This, the Tax Policy Center tells us, would result in a $3.3 Trillion increase to the Federal deficit over the next decade--even without Obama's many new spending programs and healthcare promises.

Now, however, Obama still plans to cut taxes for the middle class, but without raising them on the wealthy, while pushing for an additional stimulus package and supporting the multi-billion-dollar bail-out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which means that (according to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson):

Effectively, the federal government has now become the nation's mortgage lender....


This, is, of course, Change We Can Believe In.

Comments

Brian Shields said…
On Fannie and Freddie:

I just read the Huffington Post article you linked to about the situation, and I will confess that like most Americans, I have little idea what is going on.

Having read the article, it sounds like the whole ball of wax is riding on this gamble that people will be more comfortable with the government controlling these two companies instead of intensely paranoid like I am about the government's involvement.

It's not like the current administration has a great track record handling the economy.

Anyway, from what I see, it's the gamble that the investors will start buying debt off of Fannie and Freddie and a quicker pace, freeing them up to start offering more mortgages, getting in debt deeper.

Sorry to sound simplistic, but isn't that how we got into this mess?

Allowing homeowners to tap the inflated equity in their homes to pay off their debt, then run their debt back up to unaffordable levels is what turned this booming puppet economy into a bust. Now we're asking the government to in essence, buy the debt, so investors will allow the government to run their debt up again?

Honestly... this is not a problem that can be quick fixed. This busted housing boom took years to build... it'll take an entire generation of future homeowners to correct. The only people with undamaged credit, who can be relied on to buy a house, are your kids... and suckers like me who bombed early, learned their lesson, and have been renting for a few years waiting for the right time to buy.

Trust me, there aren't that many of us out there right now. Ten years or so from now, when people have dug out of their financial messes, and that next generation of first time homeowners comes into the market... then you'll start to see recovery.

If they fix the problems now instead of duct taping the holes.
Anonymous said…
But people don't want the party to end. They want home equity loans to buy new Mercedeses and expensive vacations and Rolexes.

They want the government to guarantee that their stucco-and-particle-board box on a fault line remains "worth" $1.2 million.

They want free money to be pouring in by doing nothing other than borrowing from the government to buy a house that rapidly appreciates.

Hard work and applying oneself to make money went out of style a while back. The present generation in power will do ANYTHING to ensure the gravy train goes a couple of extra miles before the wheels fall off, costs be damned.

After all, the gubmint can just pass the bill to the grandkids! Problem solved!
Brian Shields said…
Around here it's not the $1.2 million crowd with the Mercedes and Rolex's, it is the $600,000 homes with the Lexus SUV's when in reality they maybe can only afford a $300,000 home and a nice Ford.

The problem, around here that I see, is that it is the middle class family that is on the edge of lower middle class being stretched to higher middle class. So desperate for acceptance and feeling like they have made it, that they have gambled themselves on "Keeping up with the Jones'" until the back on their credit burdened budget blew out.
Delaware Watch said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delaware Watch said…
That's truly a pity that Obama would consider delaying increasing the taxes of the rich since that means they won't be contributing as much to paying off the debt they incurred for all of us when we borrowed billions to pay for their tax cuts.
Dana
That's sort of my point. If I supported Obama's tax plan I would be pissing mad. Because without the tax raises, it is just another unfunded tax cut that adds to the deficit. His whole premise was that tax increases to the rich would offset the tax cut to those below.

Now he is making the argument that you can't do tax increases for the rich when the economy is in trouble--presumably because tax increases for the rich will hurt a struggling economy.

If that's the case, then (a) what separates him on this issue from Bush; and (b) doesn't this invalidate part of his former premise.

At any rate it is a major waffle if not a flip-flop.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...