President Obama is finally sticking up for the middle and lower class and not playing into the hands of those that would fluff the pillows of top income earners - the richest of the rich - while leaving the rest of the country to struggle with the economic state our country is in. Obama's plan to increase taxes for the top 0.3%, while already vilified, could be the sobering punch that the wealthy in this country need and a viable solution to begin addressing deficit reduction. If nothing else, it serves as a reminder to Democrats that their party is one committed to greater economic equality. Now those in Congress need only to stand their ground in supportRepublicans in the House (and Senate), be careful as to who you make your bed with.
6 comments:
How much revenue would be raised by this idea, son of AMT?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576580800735800830.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
I don't think it'd be much, but I like the precedent for the future. It makes sense to have a bracket above the $250,000 a year because a lot of people don't see that income bracket as being "rich" or "super-rich."
Symbolic crusade against the "rich," punting on entitlements:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277700/obama-hits-bottom-editors
Just sayin', PBM.
When you've lost David Brooks.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
Let's pick the partisan arguments apart, one by one.
First, Washington Street Journal:
Yes, the revenue raised by the tax cuts would only be 1.5 trillion or 1% of the national GDP. Wow, 1% sounds pretty insignificant. But let's keep in mind the goal is deficit reduction. No one is claiming the President is trying to double our GDP with these tax cuts alone, that would be silly.
Look at it this way for a sense of scale: If nothing is changed, the projected deficit in 2021 is estimated to reach 5.5%. With Obama's new taxes and the spending cuts in his Budget Control Act, the deficit would be brought down to apprx 2.3% of the GDP. This is by no means ideal, but its progress with such a small act and It's certainly more than GOP obstruction is accomplishing.
The National Review's complaints about not having a detailed plan:
I can pinpoint the exact place in this article where the logic train went of the cliff: "So we have a statement of principles and a vague outline of a plan, which is enough to conclude that the principles are poisonous and the plan destructive."
Say what? The President's proposals are null and void simply because he has not released line-by-line the details that will fulfill his proposals? I'd hate to think what the author would think of the principles of the non-existent plan coming from the Republicans in Congress. Something tells me these concerns will be addressed when the President offers the details of his plan in the upcoming week, an action I would bet a great deal of money on happening.
Third, David Brooks.
To start out is David Brooks a sap? Because if he had said he was a sap one more time, I think this article would have been more about him than about the President or his plan.
Brooks criticizes Obama for not only taking a more liberal position on the economy but for doing forcefully. Well.... yeah. After several months of having a willingness to compromise rejected by the Republicans, I would be taking up the boxing gloves as well.
Finally, PBM.
A moment of correction before agreement.
a lot of people don't see the bracket above $250,000 as "rich" or "super-rich"? More than 85% of our country's households make less than half of that. Less than 2% make more. How is this not seen?
Behind Presiden't Obama's recent proposals is the addressing of economic inequality; standing up once more for the middle class and building an economy that does not give breaks and loopholes to those with more wealth than is humanly decent. The President's new plan isn't the be-all, end-all, but it is an important step.
Post a Comment