The current "deal" includes repeal of the Bush tax cuts, which is obviously a middle class tax hike. So much for that fraudulent Democrat talking point that they only want to tax the top 1%, THAT IS A BLATANT LIE. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/obama-debt-ceiling-deal-bush-tax-cuts_n_914708.html "The president has been clear that he's not going to sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" His, and all Democrats', definition of wealthy includes the middle class.,
those tax cuts are one of the main reason were in this mess in the first place. You don`t cut taxes in wartime. BTW only a third of those tax cuts targeted the middle class. the rest were tax cuts on the rich.
That is Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The reason we are in this mess is Bawney Fwanks and his committee demanding banks make mortgage loans to people who obviously couldn't afford to make the payments, and the Wall Street Journal has even said so. Sure there was some over speculating going on too, but the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it. Stop drinking the Obama flavored Kool aid and do some research!
He's "threatened" to end the Bush tax cuts if nothing else is done about the tax code, I don't see anywhere where it's part of the actual deal though. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-usa-debt-obama-taxes-idUSTRE7700XW20110801
There is nothing in the deal that says congress can't repeal the unEarned Income Tax Credit and make Obama voters pay their fair share to support the government.
Over half of the benefits from the cuts went to the top 10% of the earners, almost 38% went to the top 1%. Those making under 70,000 a year only received less then 20% of the benefits, and none of it "trickled down". The middle class weren't the ones most benefiting from the cuts.
You don't raise taxes when unemployment is 9.2%. Exactly how much tax revenue can be raised by taxing the rich more?
The only "research" that could possibly produce that as the reason for this mess would have to come from some blatantly false right-wing propaganda.
It doesn't take an economist to know when you raise taxes, people have less money to spend boosting the economy. Unless they are on welfare and food stamps that is.
I don't think so, the Wall Street Journal is reputable. Fwanks is a moron, but he is a Democrat so I guess that much is obvious. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993403283927985.html
IF you have any interest in the real numbers, here they are. The increased revenue of "roughly" $800 billion mentioned in the huffington post article is actually $700 billion OVER 10 years. From 2003 through 2010 the Bush tax cuts saved tax payers $2,590 trillion. Of that amount, the "rich" saved $490 billion, and the less than 'rich' saved $2.1 trillion. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire means that the 'rich' will pay $70 billion more per year and the middle class and below will pay $300 billion more per year. A very great distance from your spurious and incorrect claim that the tax cuts were 2/3's in favor of the rich. The FACT is the rate for the top bracket went from 39.6% under Clinton down to 35.0% under Bush. That is a relatively small decrease, 11.6%. The bottom bracket had their rate cut from 15% to 10% a decrease of 33.33% plus they had their child credit doubled from $500 to $1000.
That the middle class ,who got the highest marginal tax break under Bush, will now get the BIGGEST TAX HIT, due to Obama and the Spendocrats? You LIKE THAT?
That's the idea. Taking all the money out of the private sector puts all the power into the hands of big government lefties like Obama.
An unsigned opinion piece doesn't seem particularly reputable. You said: The OPINION piece doesn't say what you said it says.
And that's relevant because dollars know who spends them . . .? Is this the theory of sentient capitalism?