Treasury Secretary Says Letting Bush Tax Cuts for Rich Expire Will Not Slow Economic Growth

“Treasury Secretary Says Letting Bush Tax Cuts for Rich Expire Will Not Slow Economic Growth” – ABC News
Well that just may be true because the economy isn’t really growing.
: o )
You see, Geithner isn’t really a liar.

And who does he think hires/or not many in our country? It is most of the time those earnining over $250K. And he thinks that won’t hurt our economy? What is he smoking?

As long as the government employees get their annual pay raises and can still retire 15 or 20 years earlier than the rest of us, I don’t see a problem with the economy.
Hey! They DESERVE to retire 15 or 20 years before everyone else. Their unions give money to Democrats.
What else really matters?

Amused, think for yourself and stop spouting the propaganda of the monied classes. There is nothing the banksters and financiers would like more than to divert our attention from where it really belongs.

This from one of the folks that caused the financial crisis in the first place. The bright light of a dim wit.

Does anyone else get the urge to just slap Timmy?

How would Geithner know? He cheats….

Wish that the tax laws were scaled so that $250K earners in NYC / DC / Chicago / LA were taxed differently than $250K earners in rural areas.
The system might be perceived as a bit more fair if it were tied to the federal workers salary system – which is adjusted for the cost of living in various areas.

Who would believe anything Geithner says?

Flash Override: “think for yourself and stop spouting the propaganda of the monied classes.”
The monied classes?
You mean like Obama, who earned $5.5 million last year and basically lives expense-free on the taxpayer dime? Did he give away his annual earnings to help the downtrodden in this horrible recession? If not, why not?
What about multi-millionaire John Kerry? It’s estimated Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000 on his his multi-million dollar 76-foot yacht moored in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts. Massachusetts permits residents to send in extra tax dollars, yet Kerry never has (neither did Ted Kennedy). Didn’t the working poor in Massachusetts deserve those dollars? Why does Kerry hate Massachusetts?
What about Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the large number of millionaire Democrats in Congress? Have they sent in extra money to the IRS so that it can be distributed to the record number of poor in this country? The ones they claim they want to help?
What about billionaire George Soros? You know, the guy who made billions shorting the US currency and keeps a lot of his money in offshore accounts? How much of his wealth has he given away? How much money can one man possibly need?
What about multi-millionaire Al Gore, who recently bought a $9 California mansion and stands to make huge amounts of money from the cap-and-trade legislation? Is he part of the monied classes? Why is a man so worried about carbon emissions generate so much carbon himself? Perplexing.
What about Frank Raines and Jim Johnson? You know, the two at Fannie Mae that walked off with millions even after $10.6 billion in accounting fraud was discovered? Are they part of the monied classes? Are they parasites?
Wealthy liberal Democrats don’t care what you think, but they’ll happily take the taxes from your labor and your campaign contributions and claim they care about you while protecting their own stashes. Their hypocritical actions speak louder than words. Wake up.

I see comments made by many who actually think that we should continue a program that helped cause the mess we are trying to recover from. Someone has to give something up for the country to recover. The middle class has had its pockets picked for so long they don’t have anything left. A thirty nine percent tax rate as opposed to thirty four for two percent of the population will help in the recovry process. This only one component to a solution for a complex problem. We have been in a tailspin for quite a while. This is something that has to be done. Obama has to just do it!!!

In regards to ‘Mary’s’ remarks earlier, you name several Democrats. My question is: how do you know how much they donate to charity? If I were a betting person, I would bet that one of them gives far more to the disadvantaged and to the good of the environment than multiple Republicans.

Skip: “Except most wealthy liberal Democrats advocate raising their own taxes, sometimes significantly. Let’s see any Republicans do that!…so the charge of hypocrisy is unfounded to put it politely.”
But wealthy liberal Democrats do their best to avoid the taxes they burden everyone else with, which was my point (they recently did this with the provisions in ObamaCare as well). They have plenty of opportunities to contribute their wealth to the tax coffers of their states, yet they don’t. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are great examples. Republicans generally believe in lower taxes, so avoiding them is not hypocritical.
Another example. Nancy Pelosi loves pandering to labor unions, but she refuses to hire union labor for her own businesses.
The great thing about being a wealthy elitist liberal is that you’re never called on your hypocrisy by the left. There are always other liberals out there excusing it, to their own detriment of course.

thinkinginarkansas…think a little deeper about Democrats being out to “help” those who need it the most…let’s take the new tanning tax and the cigarette tax. Forget the fact that both are bad habits, there are people,rich and poor, who pay for both. Who do these new taxes hurt the most..the poor hairdresser or the rich executive?

And how about the new banking bill..that was great for regular folks too?..have you checked your statement lately? Have you found any new charges and fees? Who will those new fees and restrictions hurt more?..my point is the Democrats have long held the banner that they are for the little guy..but the reality is they are out for themselves…maybe the answer is to take the “career” out of “career politicians”..and I do mean repubs as well as dems.

skip..this is the “no-move-forward” argument my kids make (johnny did it too!)..Just because the unions have crafted budget-busting, unaffordable deals for their members, doesn’t mean I support executives who take government bail-out money simultaneously getting bonuses..COME ON! And puhleeease, I am sick of being told I need to feel sorry for firefighters, cops and teachers. If the job is sooo bad, why are they lined up for them?? In my county we have over 90 firefighters earning over $100,000. No, I don’t live in a ring of fire here either! and yes, of course I want them to show up if my home is ablaze, but I don’t think the 80 year old who twists her ankle in the parking lot of the grocery store needs 2 firetrucks and an ambulance to show up either…yes, they put their lives on the line when needed, but so did my nephew..EVERY DAY..during 2 tours in Iraq..and there was no union getting him even half what the buff, blonde, mercedes driving firefighter down the street from me was making.

Raise taxes on the rich.
The people that do the hiring.
Geithner thinks that won’t hurt the economy. It defies common sense.

Look at this tax cheat record on his predictions, pretty impressive at being totally wrong!

Sure, letting the Bush tax cuts expire won’t hamper growth, the economy is headed into a Great Depression irrespective of how minor policy issues are decided.

Skip: “At the same time Republicans can’t significantly cut spending…”
If a sufficient number of fiscal conservatives come to power, they can and they will cut spending. Hopefully, entire departments of the federal government will be eliminated. The useless Department of Education comes to mind.
But what’s this? I hear liberals screaming, “Why don’t you want to educate children?” The dirty little secret is the Department of Education has no charter and has never educated one child. I know it’s hard to believe but this department, created by Jimmy Carter, didn’t even exist before 1979. And, shockingly, children were actually educated in public schools before then, and they were a LOT smarter too.
From Wikipedia:
“Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.
Rather, the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.”
Does that sound like it educates children to you? Have educational results improved since 1979? Nope. Then we don’t need it, or the 5,000 bureaucrats that work there. Eliminate it and we can save hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars over ten years.
See? Cutting waste isn’t hard at all. It just takes the will to do it.

“If a sufficient number of fiscal conservatives come to power, they can and they will cut spending. Hopefully, entire departments of the federal government will be eliminated. The useless Department of Education comes to mind”
It’s funny how the Republicans have been gunning for the Dept of Education for a long time, but they can never manage to kill it. But anyways in my post I said SIGNIFICANT cuts in spending….the entire Dept of Education costs less than 1/10th of what we budget for the military alone. If you think the best way to cut spending is dismantling the federal government I’m afraid we can only settle this in the voting booth. To Republicans small government means big business. I’m sure you would have us believe we can just fend for ourselves without government protections and not fall prey to corporate America but 8 years of George Bush conclusively proved that corporate interests are not the public’s best interests.

Geithner is wrong. I will be one of the folks losing that tax cut, because I am a small businessperson who is not incorporated. Many of the so-called rich who will be hit hardest by this increase in our taxes are in similar circumstances– we run small businesses, work very hard, do not make massive profits, and pay taxes on our business through our personal income tax. When my family’s income takes that drop, we will cut back on our spending and we will not expand our business. I’m already planning for the change– we are buying a new car this winter but are looking at less- expensive models this time around and may even buy a used BMW rather than a new American car. I know, I should spend this year since the income is taxed less than it will be next year, but I know I’m gong to need the money in the next few years, when the economy continues to be sluggish and our business needs the cushion.
With less disposable income, we will not travel as much, not go out to dinner as much, not shop as much. How will that help the economy? With a higher tax rate, we will be less inclined to expand our business as well. How will that help the economy?
I’m sorry, Mr. Geither, but that money you are going to move from my pocket to yours next year would do the economy more good circulating in the private sector than it will being wasted by the government.

I have spent the last few minutes reading hot air and regurgitated talking points on this blog. Please open your eyes to see that both President’s Bush and Obama lack the leadership to to move beyond politics. Please stop blaming each other like politicians and discuss solutions. Can’t you see…this is what the media, politicians, and the elite want us to do, while they continue to control our lives?

Cindy, do you really think most Liberals want to be controlled by the government?

Cindy, I can see what you are saying…Many of the Liberals and Conservatives out their have lost the ability to think for themselves (Sheep)…so it may be easier for them to give up control to the government?

usmc.. If the politicians can cause Americans to see themselves first and foremost as members of groups..”rich”, poor, retired, unemployed, “hard working”, union, black, white, hispanic, insured, uninsured, legal, illegal, democrat, republican, making over $250,000, under $250,000, wallstreet, mainstreet, Arizonans, Texans….then they can pit us against each other as they work to pass multiple, massive purple boxes filled with legislation advertised to affect only the “others”…

There is no mechanism to protect those making less than $200K. When the Bush tax cuts expire, we will all pay more. That is the God’s honest truth and these Dems are just plain lying about it and expecting you/us to believe it.

“PAY YOUR TAXES!!!!!! U GREEDY REPUBLICAN” – pilot 1
Excuse me Pilot, Tim Geithner is a Democrat not a Republican.
Just thought you’d appreciate the correction.

Jim, this morning our local TV station aired a piece on the expiring tax cuts on those making $200,000 or more. As the reporter spoke, they ran footage of mega yachts with helicopters on them. I’d like to know how many people who earn $200,000/yr. own yachts.

thinkinginkansas: “If I were a betting person, I would bet that one of them [liberal Democrats] gives far more to the disadvantaged and to the good of the environment than multiple Republicans.”
You probably shouldn’t gamble. This is yet another lie perpetuated by liberals.
According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous “liberal” and the Scrooge-like “conservative.”
In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.”
This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.”
When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, “The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”

well Ed, open your check-book, cause you’re about to be held “responsible.”

Why oh why would Geithner care, he doesn’t pay taxes. He can’t even figure out the tax code and he worked for the Federal reserve in NYC.

“Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner said the White House would push to let the Bush tax cuts expire for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000, but keep them for middle and lower income Americans.”
- The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year
- Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.
- According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.
Source: Americans for Tax Reform (July 26, 2010)

Cindy astutely observed: “Jim, this morning our local TV station aired a piece on the expiring tax cuts on those making $200,000 or more. As the reporter spoke, they ran footage of mega yachts with helicopters on them. I’d like to know how many people who earn $200,000/yr. own yachts.”
Cindy, you make an excellent point. The press always breathlessly makes it sound as if the upper tax bracket members are the Teresa Kerry yachting types. The ones I know are far from that. My spouse and I make over 200K but we live in a modest home, vacation within the US (when we can find the time and the money), and work very hard every day for the money we earn. We know several other families in that tax bracket as well, and none are what anyone would consider super-wealthy. None of them own a yacht, although we do know one couple with a bass boat. None of them live in multi-million dollar mansions or have second and third homes in exotic locals, although I do know one couple with a vacation cabin in the mountains and another that has a time-share condo in Florida for two weeks a year. None of them own a private jet, although I do know one lady who always flies first class when she travels to visit family twice a year.
yes, we are comfortable. I will not pretend that we do not have it much easier financially than most. That’s one reason we give generously to charity and do volunteer work (and everyone I know in our tax bracket does the same). But much of what we earn gets plowed back into our business. And our success and hard work makes it possible for several other families to have economic stability because of the jobs we provide. I’m tired of seeing news stories like the one Cindy references that make it sound like we are “rich people” who are whining because we will have to raid the petty cash to make the payments on our Lear jet now.

Source: Americans for Tax Reform”
Well then you can line the bird cage with it.

Ryan C: “Well then you can line the bird cage with it.”
The ATR source is the Internal Revenue Service. As usual, left wingers have no rational rebuttal. FAIL.

Flash…..you think that people earning over $200,000 are “overpriviledged”.. You know what? If you live in America you are overpriviledged, that includes you, Flash..have you ever lived anywhere else? I have. One of the most amazing things I ever heard was spoken by an Indian man who said of America..”I hear even the poor there are fat” ..Ponder that perspective for a minute and count your blessings.

When you raise taxes on the rich they quit buying! I sell high end pianos. I have lost 2/3′s of my salary since Obammy got into office. I could lose my job now if he raises taxes any more. The people who buy my product IS the people making over $200,000.00, and I can tell you now, these people are NOT spending their money because they are AFRAID of this administration, so the little people like me are suffering. So Gitter and Obammy can say, it won’t hurt the economy but, THEY ARE LYING! LYING! LYING! LYING! They are hurting me, the little guy!

Carol in Alabama says that since Obama took office that she lost buisness. The cause of this she says are the Obama tax increases. What increases are you talking about you moron. 95% of Americans got a tax break from Obama. How could letting this tax break expire hurt the economy? Since the inception of this tax break the American economy has gone no where but down. Who in their right mind could say that keeping this tax break will help the economy?

Mary | Jul 26, 2010 2:18:07 PM posted: “The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.”
Small businesses are also nimble and can change to avoid taxes. Owners who currently add profits over $200K to their personal income tax forms – who also don’t want to pay higher taxes – should search for financial advice to restructure their small business into the likes of an LLC or a C Corporation where taxes are handled differently.

For anyone worried about our huge national debt, know that letting the Bush tax cuts expire will help reduce it or at least keep it from growing.
And don’t let the greedy complaining about it fool you. The rich don’t pay the slightly higher tax rate on all their income, just on the income above $250,000 for a family, over $200,000 for an individual.This rate only affects about 2% of Americans, the richest among us.
Giving the rich more money has never helped create jobs, not when Reagan or Bush gave them tax cuts.

Posted by: cindy | Jul 28, 2010 1:28:15 PM
Cindy – without a doubt 2007 was ugly for most everyone. And I agree Medicare IS a huge problem.
But I’ve really dug into the Social Security issue since my husband and I are on the leading edge of the Baby Boomers, and we paid into the program during our peak earning years.
Here’s what I discovered: SS is NOT in trouble. The reason is that the social security system owns trillions of dollars of U.S. government bonds that earn interest for the system. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office projections the social security trust fund will grow from $2.5 Trillion to $3.8 Trillion in 2020.
Social security trustees had previously said that social security might run into trouble paying full benefits in 2041. Now they are saying that this might happen in 2037. True, we might have trouble 27 years from now. And then again we might not; much depends on the economy and our policies.
For example, Social Security is funded by taxes on wage and salary income. However, there is a limit to how much income is subject to that tax. Right now people pay taxes on their wage and salary income up to $106,800. Earnings above that level are not subject to the tax. This has become a real problem because of the explosion in income inequality.
According to the WSJ, if we were to remove that income cap the SS system would be safe as far as one can see into the future. But those at the top of the heap don’t want that to happen. 90% of the stocks and bonds are owned by the richest 1% – they would rather get their hands on that pool of SS money to play with on Wall Street, so the rest of us will continue to hear fear mongering about how the government has wrecked SS, Government is evil, and only the private sector knows how to handle money, etc.

Cindy: “I see no reason to believe they can change”. Them is us, warts and all. We peons still have some measure of power over elections. On the other hand, I’ve worked for the Darkside. Download “the Great American Bubble Machine” by Matt Taibbi. A long read, but a great investigative journalist. Then tell me who you trust with our money.