Scrooged

[Long Run]

Interesting chart, Gob.

D/M makes a good point. What is being discussed is whether there should be a tax rate increase. I get why D's frame the argument as "giving the rich a tax cut"; we expect partisans to engage in hyperbole. But the media allow this nonsense, and at best say it is an extension of a tax cut. After 8 years or so with a set marginal tax rate, don't we start calling tax rate increases, tax rate increases?

I also don't get the coupling of the unemployment extension with the tax rate increase. They are two separate issues, both with their rationales for and against. Again, I get why the D's link the two because they think they can make political hay that way. But the media should not go along with either partisan spin. I would think that those who believe in fiscal stimulus (like Paul Krugman) should be in favor of both extending unemployment benefits and keeping marginal tax rates the same (or lowering tax rates for certain favored categories). Is it the extreme hate for all things Bush that cause many on the left to want to violate Keynes Economics 101 - raising taxes in a recession? Or something else?

Finally, on the tax rate issue, why is it not pointed out that the D's had full control to make changes in the marginal rates for over a year and a half. Many people were saying that the one thing Congress could do to help the economy was to provide certainty as to what future taxes would look like; and it was an economic imperative to fix the tax rates going forward. Instead, after the financial bailout, Congress occupied itself with less important matters for nearly two years, and now have the D's temerity to complain the R's are making it hard to change the rates. Huh?

[Econoline]

As I've pointed out in another thread, the legislation which provided an increase in tax rates in January 2011 was passed years ago by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President. To blame the Democrats for that fact is just bullshit. Passing another law which will cut the tax rates below what they were scheduled to be is a tax cut; the argument is over how much of a tax cut is needed, and how much we can afford.

And a year and a half ago there was no need for a tax cut because there was already one in effect; a year and a half ago there was no need for a tax hike for the wealthiest Americans because there was already one scheduled for January 2011.

(ETA: as for raising taxes in a recession, I think it's pretty clear that for the wealthiest Americans, at least, the recession is already over.)

[rubato]

As I've pointed out in another thread, the legislation which provided an increase in tax rates in January 2011 was passed years ago by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President. To blame the Democrats for that fact is just bullshit. Passing another law which will cut the tax rates below what they were scheduled to be is a tax cut; the argument is over how much of a tax cut is needed, and how much we can afford.

And a year and a half ago there was no need for a tax cut because there was already one in effect; a year and a half ago there was no need for a tax hike for the wealthiest Americans because there was already one scheduled for January 2011.

(ETA: as for raising taxes in a recession, I think it's pretty clear that for the wealthiest Americans, at least, the recession is already over.)

Pointing out the truth to our republican citizens is as useless as giving astrolabes to chickens. Tell them who they can hate and they will follow you.

yrs,
rubato