American Hero: Bernie Sanders to block tax extention for the rich

by Ben Hoffman

SANDERS: Not only is this bad public policy, driving up the deficit, increasing the growing gap between the rich and everybody else… I think it is bad politics. It’s bad politics in the sense of who is going to believe the President, or anybody who votes for this, in the future when you have campaigned for years against Bush’s economic policy and say “Oh, by the way, that’s what I’m voting for. I’m voting for tax breaks for the rich.” And by the way, if it turns out in this deal to be two years, you can bet that that’s just the beginning. It will be extended beyond that. So I think for a Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate to be following the Bush economic philosophy of tax breaks, millionaires, and billionaires is absolutely wrong public policy, absolutely wrong politically, and I gotta tell you… I will do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.

SCHULTZ: Will you filibuster this?

SANDERS: I will do whatever I can on this. This is a very, very bad agreement.

SCHULTZ: So the two year extension of the Bush tax cuts, the thirteen months on unemployment, that’s the reported meat of the deal. You’re telling us tonight that you will do everything you can to stop this deal—

SANDERS: I will.

SCHULTZ: —this will of course push it into the next session of Congress and we would go back to the old way. That’s what would you take right now, Senator?

SANDERS: I believe, Ed, that we have the vast majority of the American people on our side. I think we gotta hold tough on this, hold firm on this, and not concede to Republicans, who as you indicated, have no inclination to compromise. They want it all for their rich friends.

Source

39 Responses to “American Hero: Bernie Sanders to block tax extention for the rich”

  1. American HeroAss: Bernie Sanders to block tax extention for the rich

    Ben forgets to mention that in so doing, Bernie is also creating confusion and instability. If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, economic progress will be brought into 2010 from 2011. This, of course, will cause much economic sadness.

    But alas, let’s not let that get in the way of taking money from people who have earned it and simply giving it to other people who haven’t earned it.

    • No, that will create stability. Everyone will know what our taxes will be and the deficit will be under control. The way we’re going now, we’re heading towards the point of no return. Right now, we’re paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt. Our country is being destroyed by debt.

      • The way we’re going now, we’re heading towards the point of no return.

        I agree.

        Right now, we’re paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt.

        I’m willing to agree that you’re right on this one too.

        Our country is being destroyed by debt.

        Last, I agree.

        See, much of the conservative’s job is complete.. Even the most Liberal Libtards realize that we can not sustain what we’ve started. Of course, as is typical, you think the solution is to tax and tax and tax, but hey. Baby steps.

        Anyway, do you understand Hauser’s Law?

      • [Anyway, do you understand Hauser’s Law?]

        Some kind of bullshit economic theory that simple-minded right-wingers use to make their case for tax cuts?

      • Some kind of bullshit economic theory that simple-minded right-wingers use to make their case for tax cuts?

        I didn’t think so.

  2. Go Bernie, Go Bernie! Like it’s your birthday! I’ll gladly pay more in taxes as long as it means the tax cuts for the moocher class (the upper 5%) end too.

    • So employers are now “moochers”. They pay 96% of the taxes but they are “moochers”.
      Nice Class wafare. So I guess Liberals do believe in War, after all…:)
      Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

      Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
      Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

  3. “But alas, let’s not let that get in the way of taking money from people who have earned it and simply giving it to other people who haven’t earned it.”

    Taking?

    Earned?

    Giving?

    In order to respond with specifics to your broad and highly general statement Pino, I would have to write a book…but I doubt you would read it…

    • I would have to write a book

      Give it a shot. Write away….

      Otherwise, your mindless and pointless drivel is insulting without enlightening. Which, and now that I think of it, is emblematic of the Left.

    • That’s exactly right… Republicans are going to blame the huge deficits on spending — not on the tax cuts.

      Obama is a complete and utter failure. It’s time he announced he won’t run again in 2012.

      • Republicans are going to blame the huge deficits on spending

        Because when you spend more than you make, you go in debt.

        not on the tax cuts.

        Reducing taxes spurs the economy. When the economy is spurred, more revenue is generated. The more revenue that is generated, the higher the revenue from taxes.

        Keep up.

        Obama is a complete and utter failure.

        If for no other reason, the fact that I’ve been TELLING you he is an abject failure for 4 years should give you at least SOME pause and to think that maybe I’m right.

        But I do take guilty pleasure in being right about Obama. And even more in your squealing that you have just now discovered it.

      • [Reducing taxes spurs the economy.]

        When has that ever worked? Didn’t work with Bush. Didn’t work with Reagan. Didn’t work with Kennedy since he cut out loopholes when he cut taxes.

        [If for no other reason, the fact that I’ve been TELLING you he is an abject failure for 4 years should give you at least SOME pause and to think that maybe I’m right.]

        He’s only been president for two years, but he’s a failure because he’s embracing ideas that do not work: ideas that you promote.

      • Didn’t work with Bush. Didn’t work with Reagan. Didn’t work with Kennedy since he cut out loopholes when he cut taxes.

        The economy most certainly grew under those Presidents.

        He’s only been president for two years

        Right. But he ran for 2 years.

        2+2=4.

      • The economy always grows. It grew under Carter. It grew under Nixon.

  4. “The economy most certainly grew under those Presidents.”

    Pino, jobless growth is hardly growth. when wealth doubles and triples for the wealthy, while incomes decline for the other 95%, that’s not real growth.

  5. jobless growth is hardly growth.

    You’re right. Which is why I disagree with this President. Labor, like sugar, is a commodity. When it becomes more expensive, to buy or keep, people will buy less of it.

    If you wanna reduce unemployment, make labor less expensive.

    • People are a commodity? So I guess that blows the right-wing abortion argument out of the water. 🙂

      • People are a commodity?

        If you went to college I would try to get your money back. I would offer the same advise on your primary schooling, but almost certainly that was provided to you via the government so you have no recourse.

        If you read what I wrote, of course you would then have to comprehend it, what I said was that LABOR is a commodity. You don’t purchase labor if it costs more to you than the productive use of it will gain you.

        For example, if a certain amount of labor will add $40k to your business but that labor costs $50k, you won’t purchase it. This is why you typically don’t see PhD’s working at McDonald’s. While McDonald’s would certainly LOVE to have the abilities of an average PhD working for them, the cost of having to pay that PhD certainly exceeds the benefit.

      • [If you went to college I would try to get your money back.]

        I did indeed go to college. Did you? No, I didn’t think so.

  6. “If you wanna reduce unemployment, make labor less expensive”
    That is part of the faulty supply-side economic theory to which ben refers. Until reagan, economics were fairly simple. His new “voodoo” economics, which favor the supply, or corporate, side of the equation over the demand, or public, were pretty new. He cut taxes, and then almost immediately had to institue one the largest tax increases in history to make up for the mistake. And it didn’t create jobs. Bush the Lesser tried it again to an even greater degree, and again, it didn’t create jobs.

    Making labor less expensive to create jobs, looks pretty good on paper, as does pure communism. Neither of which work out in practice. Your theory might work, if business was regulated to pass the savings on to the consumer, as opposed to pocketing the profits. but, taking the money out of the consumer market in the way of lower wages, even when the savings are passed on (ala Wal Mart), creates a society of Wal Mart level wage earners who have no choice but to shop at Wal Mart as they cannot afford to do so elsewhere. Many Wal mart case studies support this.
    If we make the cost of labor cheaper, who spends the money and makes the purchases which keep our economy going? Not the CEOs and owners – they hoarde it. And even by investing in stocks, and putting the money back into circulation in theory, doesn’t work as stock purhcases and hedge fund investments don’t create tangible items which are manufactured, sold and purchased – especially when the same supply side proponents push to allow corporations to offshore production in the name of profit.
    Consumate capitalist Henry Ford understood this. It is why he paid his workers higher wages than his competitors and didn’t fight unions over 5 day/40 hour work weeks. he understood that in order to have a market for his product, the general population had to be able to afford it.

    • Right-wingers want to be in a race to the bottom. If another country allows lower wages, our country should allow lower wages. We shouldn’t have to control our pollution if other countries don’t control theirs.

      You’re right about Ford’s policies. With a stronger middle class, everyone wins. With policies that right-wingers support, only the wealthiest win.

    • He cut taxes, and then almost immediately had to institue one the largest tax increases in history to make up for the mistake. And it didn’t create jobs. Bush the Lesser tried it again to an even greater degree, and again, it didn’t create jobs.

      The data suggests you’re wrong. I couldn’t sum it up in a simple comment post so I explained it here:

      http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/a-quick-study-on-the-impact-of-taxes/

      Enjoy.

      • It might help if you added the years on the x-axis. But just to check to see if your analysis was correct or if you were just seeing a face in a potato, I checked the data.

        Here is a chart (with years) of the Employment-Population Ratio (Source)


        What created the rise during the 60s? The was an automobile boom, for one. Tech industries were coming of age, thanks in part to the space program (socialism). There was also the war thinning out the population and creating jobs in the military industrial complex. Also, while Kennedy cut the upper tax rate, he also eliminated many tax loopholes.

        What created the rise in the 80s? First of all, there was a sharp downward spike immediately after the tax cuts, and Reagan raised taxes every year after that. We saw some pretty good growth beginning around 1984. Was that due to taxes? Doubtfully. What events happened in the late 70s? The invention of the personal computers. Along with that came computer manufacturers, programmer jobs, software sales… There was also the invention of the VCR, which brought about video rental stores and VCR sales. It was a mini-tech boom that created jobs more than anything.

        Onward to the tax cuts of the 2000s. Looks like a pretty serious downward trend to me.

        In the 1990s, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and look at the growth from around 1993 through 2000!

        You’re just seeing a face in a potato, Pino. 🙂

      • It might help if you added the years on the x-axis.

        Good point. Will fix in the future.

        What created the rise during the 60s? The was an automobile boom, for one. Tech industries were coming of age, thanks in part to the space program (socialism). There was also the war thinning out the population and creating jobs in the military industrial complex. Also, while Kennedy cut the upper tax rate, he also eliminate many tax loopholes.

        You will find that technology advanced in all ages. The fact that we had cars, VCRs etc in one decade has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve seen a continuous climb in jobs as the rate goes down.

        But I certainly do appreciate you digging into the data.

      • [we’ve seen a continuous climb in jobs as the rate goes down.]

        That’s not true. We’ve seen a downward trend since the Bush tax cuts.

      • We’ve seen a downward trend since the Bush tax cuts.

        We’ve seen a downward trend since the housing bubble burs. When Bush lowered taxes, jobs grew immediately.

      • [We’ve seen a downward trend since the housing bubble burs. When Bush lowered taxes, jobs grew immediately.]

        The chart shows otherwise.

      • The chart shows otherwise.

        Not true.

        Check my 3rd chart. I’ve shaded the time right before and after tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts took place right before the job growth in the mid 2000’s.

        However the debate goes, I’m glad I got you to obtain, display and analyze the data.

      • You’re grasping at straws, Pino.

        Right after the 1981 tax cuts was a big drop in jobs.
        Right after the 2001 tax cuts, there was a big drop in jobs and it set us off on a downward trend.

        There was just a churning action from 1948 until Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, as shown clearly in this chart:

        As you can see, Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 resulted in massive job growth and it lasted until Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981, at which time the trend suddenly reversed itself and we soon had record unemployment.

        See, you can prove anything with statistics. 🙂

      • Right after the 1981 tax cuts was a big drop in jobs.

        Those drops were due to Carter’s recession.

        Right after the 2001 tax cuts, there was a big drop in jobs and it set us off on a downward trend.

        I don’t see the top tax bracket moving to 35% until 2003. And even so, it was right after those tax cuts the jobs grew.

        Right after the 2001 tax cuts, there was a big drop in jobs and it set us off on a downward trend.

        I’m very happy to see you give “credit” for the Housing Bubble Recession to Carter.

        as shown clearly in this chart:

        It shows no such thing.

      • Sure! And the growth during the 90s was due to Reagan’s tax cuts! And little green men with big ears carry a lunar orb on their galactic travels.

  7. indyfromaz,
    First, I’ve never seen you post anything that would make me believe you are anything close to independent.

    second, clinton signed NAFTA, which was a republican bill. I didn’t like it, and neither did most liberals.

    Third, during the French Revolution, there is an account of peasants who killed a local aristocrat by burning him alive and forcing his wife and children to watch. Then they forced his wife to eat his flesh before raping and killing her. That is class warfare. differing politically is not. please stop parroting right wing taling point malapropisms.

  8. Thanks for the Censorship Ben. It proves my point.
    Have a nice angry life.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: