Bingo on the bolded part. I don’t think most people realize how true this is. ETA: Don’t even change the tax rates; just close the loopholes and eliminate most deductions. I think we’d be surprised by how much revenue would be realized.
How about Growth in the Dow Jones? Measured when the presidents were actually in office (inauguration to inauguration)
Carter, 1/20/1977 to 1/20/1981
Start: 959, Finish: 951
Growth: -1% (-0.2% per year)
Reagan-Bush I, 1/20/1981 to 1/20/1993
Start: 951, Finish: 3242
Growth: 241% (20.9% per year)
Clinton, 1/20/93 to 1/20/2001
Start: 3242, Finish: 10588
Growth: 227% (28.4% per year)
Bush II, 1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009
Start: 10588, Finish: 7949 1/20/09
Growth: -33% (-4.1% per year)
Conservative logic would have us believe that the 8 year drop in the DJ under Bush was probably due to Clinton though.
And that the rebound under Obama is due to Bush…
Well, it was probably due to the dot com bubble bust when he started, coupled with 9/11 and 2 wars, and the housing market bubble and financial meltdown at the end of his term. Not that he is blameless in all of that (especially those 2 wars), but averaging the problems over the term like that is kind of silly. Then again, so is doing the same thing over Reagan/Bush I’s term.
-XT
Right, but the overall point xtisme is that there is no compelling argument from the facts that I’ve ever seen that explains to me how the Bush tax rates were better for the economy in any way than the Clinton rates. All of the relevant economic indicators were stronger under the previous tax regime. So it’s extremely hard to understand the argument that returning to those rates would hurt the economy.
I agree…so let’s get rid of them all. I’m not sure how many more ways I can say it…I’m cool with getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts. Make them ex-parrots, shuffle them off this mortal coil, etc etc.
-XT
I don’t see the issue.
Obama isn’t really going to do this. He promised to do it, but he broke that promise back when his party controlled Congress. News flash - that isn’t the case any longer.
He is bringing it up now so it can get shot down and he can blame it on the GOP, and have an excuse to not make the spending cuts that all sane people agree need to be made to eliminate the deficit.
It also gives him political cover when Congress does what everybody knew they would do all along - fail to make the Medicare cuts that are needed to make Obamacare revenue neutral.
2012 is an election year. Obama and the Dems can’t get away with not passing a budget, again, so they need to cover their asses with something. This is something.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, someone is always taxed disproportionately in any tax schema. Now granted, usually it is the middle class, but it has to be someone. May as well be us all if we’re truly serious about the debt.
But we’re not. 80% of the electorate isn’t ready to get serious about the debt and will vote out anyone bringing serious proposals to fight it. Half of them think we can implement European-sized social benefits (not that I oppose this) simply by taxing the rich (which isn’t enough to make it happen), and the other half think we can lower the debt by lowering taxes, but would talk about armed revolution if their services were reduced by one iota.
I would like to note that Obama isn’t a dictator. When the Republicans in the Senate force a supermajority on absolutely everything the Democrats will need to compromise. Your partisan dig on Obama for continuing the Bush budget cuts is hardly something he can be blamed for. Blame the robotic, unthinking Republican Senators for that.
They were holding up a necessary international treaty (among other things) because they are hysterical whining pussies willing to threaten visceral damage on the nation in order to get their way.
And the next time they are scheduled to lapse is December 2012 - conveniently right after the presidential election but before the next Inauguration. I think it’s highly likely that some or all of the provisions will be allowed to sunset (unless the GOP has a veto-proof majority in both houses, I suppose).
Maybe…just maybe…Barry is eating their lunch.
He gave them everything they asked for, cuts galore. So now they are left running on very unpopular themes. Most especially, tax cuts for the “rich” or the ‘rich’ or whomsoever.
So, here’s what he could do: promise cuts in programs, depending on necessity, facts on the ground. Roil back the Bush tax cuts, and thereby change the facts on the ground. Accepting that some pain is necessary, he can cast himself as the guy who faced the facts but made the pain less onerous. Plug enough loopholes in the corporate tax, and the pain may drop to negligible amounts, but either way he gets to reduce the pain.
Now, there will be a great squeal of porky pain, the rich and the corporadoes are going to flood the next election with money. But they were going to do that anyway, so thats a wash. Countering that flood of money is popular support, which may or may not be enough to counter that flood of bucks. But if it isn’t enough, it wouldn’t have been enough anyway.
Polls as they stand now say that letting the tax cuts for the “upper brackets” expire is very popular, let the Republicans run against that. Let them run against Planned Parenthood and Big Bird. Hell, double dog dare 'em to!
The corporado Republicans will throw the rich under the bus to protect Exxon etc. from taxation. The Tea Party loons will insist that their people must, repeat, must sign the suicide pact. Plus, they must all be dead set against Health Care reform, which grows more popular all the time. To get the Tea Party enthusiasm and money, the Pubbies pretty much have got to say “I love the rich, hate seniors on Medicare, and want to raise the retirement age to eighty!”
Plus, all the stuff that Obama caved on? Most of it hasn’t really happened yet. Pencils have erasers. Solve the revenue problem, maybe most of them won’t be really necessary. But at the very least, they will be eased.
This is so sane, it just might work!
And the grumpy left who feels betrayed? Will they sit at home and bitch if its Trump v Obama? Huckleberry v Obama? Minnesota Bats v Obama? Don’t think so, but there’s a real good chance that his pickup from the middle and the indy’s will more than make up for it.
Most likely lose the “I’m not really a Republican, more like a non-partisan libertarian” crowd. Fuck 'em.
I can tell you that, if I brought home a quarter of a million a year for a few years, I could most certainly retire young, live my life in comfort, and never have to worry about money or work again. It wouldn’t even be very difficult. So am I allowed to call those folks “rich”?
It’s in the interests of the very rich to keep entry level of the top-most tax bracket as low as possible. This swells the ranks of the “rich” and gives them more allies at the voting booth.
Realistically, however, there’s a huge difference between making $250,000 a year and making $1,000,000 a year. Or making $1,000,000 a year and making $10,000,000 a year. Instead of arguing about what counts as “rich”, we just need to add some more brackets at the top end of the scale.
If you aren’t *rich *at 250k you’re overspending.
If you come into money when you have a lot of debt, then you’re not rich until you pay it off. On the other hand, if someone (not you) makes a lot of money and spends more than all of it, why should the less well to do suffer? Look at Michael Jackson. look at my step-sister and her husband, who both came from money. He is a shrink for the rich. Right after a bad land deal, they moved to La Jolla where they are the poorest people on the block. I don’t think they should have low taxes in order to keep up a lifestyle they can’t afford.
In Montana? Maybe. I could probably buy several counties with the price of my not very topscale house in the Bay Area. 
Wealth also depends on where you live. Cite: Green Acres.
Your first clue: don’t marry one of the Gabor sisters. Gabor is to “high maintenance” what Godzilla is to Geico Gecko.
I don’t know about that. Rich to me is not having to work while being able to maintain one’s current lifestyle, in perpetuity. If I stopped working now, I’d have to cut back significantly because there’s no way I’d be able to survive on my current savings and investments for the next, oh, 50 years without drastic changes to my lifestyle, or at all.
That’s ridiculous.
Being rich has nothing to do with a person’s current lifestyle, it has to do with having significantly more wealth than the average person.
Otherwise, even Paris Hilton could make the claim that she isn’t rich, since her current lifestyle involves spending upwards of $20 million a year on parties and clubbing and Gucci handbags and designer bows for her army of purse dogs, and she can’t maintain that lifestyle indefinitely.*
*All hypothetical; I have no idea what Paris Hilton spends per year on her ludicrous lifestyle.
I was sort of joking, but by that measure it would be possible for Bill Gates to not be rich. If his lifestyle required spending enough.