White House Suggests Tax Provisions to Pay for Jobs Bill

Sounds like a good plan. I’ve always thought hedge fund managers shouldn’t be getting the tax break that they do. They aren’t creating anything so why shouldn’t they pay the same taxes that the rest of us do?

“White House budget director Jack Lew today unveiled how the White House would pay for the president’s job creation proposal.”

What’s wrong with that statement -or rather, is there anything RIGHT about that statement? The White House, and anyone else in government for that matter, can’t pay for SQUAT until they take money from the private sector.

Are all these revenue streams spread out over ten years or just the new limits on deductionsfor income over $250,000?

Sounds like the same old tax increases he couldn’t get passed when he owned both Houses. All short term jobs for unions, leaving the cost to be picked up by the states and more infrastructure that didn’t work last time. Same old, same old in different language that didn’t work the first time and we are still trying to pay off.

Our President just doesn’t understand the real world, does he Now he hurries Congress to pass “his” bill ….for which he will give us a cost figurte….later…..why wait? …another vacation in the offing or what? Somebody get him to do something IN A TIMELY MANNER, rather than AT HIS OWN PACE……..which would be disasterous for all of us. While I am at it, is there an acting school in DC……you know, where they could teach him to act (at least) presidential? When he flunks out of his current job, the SEIU must have someplace where they can use him.

raising taxes in a recession on the job creators that you couldn’t pass when you controlled both houses. no politics there..

Posted by: J taberry | September 12, 2011, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm

Again, its standard economic theory not to raise taxes during a free-fall economic collapse. Bush’s tax cuts will be rescinded sooner or later. They caused deficits and debt when they were introduced, and they will have to go.

“New limits on deductions for income over $250,000. This would raise $400b over ten years.”

so the additional spending of $447 billion will happen next year, but we will pay it off in ten years. So does the payoff total include interest? Last I checked it’s not like a can go into a bank and ask for $44,700 to pay for a car and then take out a 10 year loan and only have to pay back $44,700.

Only in DC is that sort of accounting accepted.

It seems prudent to have the CBO analyze it. Having President Obama “pitch” it so strongly has the same effect on me as would a car salesman making the same once-in-a-lifetime offer.

Come to think of it, aren’t the laws in a lot of jurisdictions to protect the consumer? That’s the CBO’s role but BEFORE the bill is passed, please.

“Eliminating certain oil and gas industry tax breaks that would raise $40 billion.”

Yes, good idea. and that $ will just be passed immediately to the consumer, which, in turn, hurts lower income people the hardest.

look for prices to go up at the pump and most likely commodities will also go up to pay for a bill that failed the last time Obama did it. Small business will not hire just for a tax break if they have no one to sell their product to.

“It was a smart compromise that helped out ordinary Americans.”

I’m glad you see things our way, Rep. Pelosi. How’s your vineyard doing this year anyway?

Posted by: Barry | September 12, 2011, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm

You don’t have to be poor to be smart, or fair or be able to find good compromise solutions.

Pass this plan before America finds out whats in it and finds out THEY ARE SCREWED

Posted by: Barry | September 12, 2011, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm

President Obama is a very pragmatic politician willing to work across the table – unlike the ideological zealots on the extreme right.

President Obama is a very pragmatic politician willing to work across the table – unlike the ideological zealots on the extreme right.”

Nothing says pragmatic like tax cuts for the wealthy. I’m just glad we could make Rep. Boehner pleased. This is just the beginning. Thanks again for understanding, Nancy. More compromise on the way!

Jay Carney told reporters: “we simply don’t have the capacity to pay for everything” —– That is a stone cold fact. So why are we sending so much money overseas? Do we really need a base in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Why are we paying for the privilage of protecting Japan? We have bases all around the world that we don’t need and there is no way to solve the problems on the horn of Africa. If we stop trying to feed and protect the rest of the world we might have enough to protect and provide jobs for our own.

1. Tax the rich
2. Tax the rich.
3. Tax the rich.
4. Tax the rich.

This administration can’t think outside a crackerjack box.
Posted by: foggy
***************************************************************
These are same demons that have comprised Obama’s talking points most recently: the rich, hedge fund managers, oil companies, and last but not least those evil corporate jet owners.

His handlers are applying Saul Alinksy’s Rule for Radicals No. 13:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

In other words, take ‘em out.

“We should look for all the ways that we can to increase revenue by closing loopholes, etc.”

Posted by: Lydia | September 12, 2011, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm

I totally agree. Let’s also eliminate all of your tax exemptions and deductions. It’s not fair that you benefit from them when others don’t. We can’t fill the tax coffers with Hope and Change. It’ll take a lot more of your cash. Once your budget is really squeezed, we’ll see how appealing you find big government spending.

Posted by: Janet | September 12, 2011, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm

With Democratic majorities in Congress in December, Obama RENEWED the Bush tax cuts. He could have vetoed them, but he didn’t. He knew that not passing the cuts would hurt the economy. He just vilified them to placate his sycophants. And while he duped you, he took advantage of those tax cuts himself, saving $100,000. He knew you’d cover for him. And you did. Why aren’t you complaining that his tax rate is a paltry 27%? He made $1.7 million and his entire lifestyle is supported by taxpayers. Why hasn’t he returned the money to the IRS? HE DOESN’T NEED IT. And he continues to play you for a fool while getting wealthier and wealthier.

Posted by: Oliver Shagnasty | September 12, 2011, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

The last Republican president hit a low of about 20% approval near the end of his terms. Don’t worry, we appreciate exactly what we have.

As long as Americans have their hand out looking for food stamps and welfare, we can expect to continue to elect politicians like Obama who promise to give them more by “taxing the rich” and the “large corporations”. One day we Americans will wake up and find “the rich” have all left the country and all the corporations have built plants overseas and no one will be left to pay for the food stamps and welfare.

Our high tax rates incentivize companies to keep earnings and growth outside the country. This situation contributes to economic stagnation and little job growth in America. If we want economic growth in American we need to eliminate intrusive regulation and our high and complex tax structure. Drastically cut the corporate tax rate and eliminate the loopholes so that companies have real incentives to grow here not search for ways to keep money, growth, and earnings outside the country.

Wealth, jobs, and economic growth will flow to where it gets the best return. With our tax structure, regulation climate, and high labor cost, that is not here. Like it or not, that is economic reality.

Until we build a FOUNDATION FOR GROWTH which includes LOWER TAXES, LESS REGULATION, and LESS SPENDING, we will never see job and economic growth. When will Obama address the million who pay no federal taxes? When will Obama address the 46 million on food stamps? When will Obama address the outrageous salaries and benefits of government workers? When will Obama address the ever expanding intrusion by government into the affaires of business and individuals?

The fact is the American economic problems may never be solved. All of the people living off the governments dime (welfare, food stamps, government employees, etc.) will continue to vote for the SPEND, PRINT, REGULATE, and TAX DEMOCRATS. The SPEND, PRINT, REGULATE, and TAX DEMOCRATS will continue to vote for the maintenance and extension of these programs so they can keep getting elected. It is a downward spiral with no viable solution unless all of us not living off the governments dime vote 100% to replace the SPEND, PRINT, REGULATE, and TAX DEMOCRATS.

Obama has made it clear he plans to spend $1 BILLION to try to get reelected. Spending $1 BILLION while the American people are suffering shows how out of touch Obama is.

The Democrats and Obama are trying to destroy the American Dream. The RECKLESS SPENDING, INTRUSIVE REGULATION, and HIGH TAXES are stopping job and economic growth.

We must continue to VOTE THEM OUT!!!

There’s more than enough blame to go around. The late Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, and Barney Frank all happen to have (D) after their names, just for a start.
+++++++
I’m going to throw in the former KKK member, Senator Byrd (D).

Posted by: Janet | September 12, 2011, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm

Obama didn’t need the approval of Republicans to do anything. They didn’t have the numbers to stop anything he wanted to do.

And why are you deserving of tax breaks? You don’t even work!

Posted by: Chuck | September 12, 2011, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm

The Republicans voted as a solid block against an extension of tax rates for every worker in America on the first $250,000 of income. Where have you been? Had even five of them voted for this it would have passed.

I like the compromise worked out by the White House that garnered an extension of unemployment insurance for the unemployed, obtained payroll tax cuts for all American workers and extended the tax cuts for every American as well.

You didn’t like the compromise the White House negotiated? Actually you do like it, it’s just you’re bound by the right wing code to shut up about those things. That’s cool, we understand.

In regards to taxes, Obama has been, actually, a prolific tax cutter. Obama is one of the most prolific tax cutters in recent history. See “Obama the Silent Tax Cutter, You wouldn’t know it, but he’s cut taxes more than George W. Bush did in his first term. But Obama doesn’t get credit because he hasn’t cut *income*taxes as broadly as Bush and Reagan did” (He also doesn’t see it as an economic philosophy but rather as a tool to get the economy going… ) Clift notes that the health care reform legislation doesn’t raise taxes till 2018, and then only on people making over $250,000 per year.

It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Simply hold onto assets that went up and sell those that went down, and never realize gains until you have offsetting losses.

The evidence is undeniable that affluent investors and property owners report far fewer gains whenever the capital gains tax goes up. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary, and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.

With the super-high 1977 tax rates of 39.9% on capital gains and 70% on dividends and salaries, federal revenues were 18% of GDP. In 1992, revenues were only 17.5% of GDP. In 2007, thanks in large part to a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, revenues were 18.5% of GDP.

To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now.

The trickle down theory worked when Henry Ford decided he wanted his workers to be able to buy the cars they made. Then the money started to grow. Kill the middle class, and all you will have is 2% of the country trying to support itself, and there is only so much demand out there when everyone is just trying to survive.

Posted by: Kimberly | September 12, 2011, 7:35 pm 7:35 pm

If by “most prolific tax cutter” you mean Obama created the largest welfare class in US history that doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you’re correct. But a huge welfare class is not a characteristic of a prosperous nation.

“The trickle down theory worked when Henry Ford decided he wanted his workers to be able to buy the cars they made. Then the money started to grow. Kill the middle class, and all you will have is 2% of the country trying to support itself, and there is only so much demand out there when everyone is just trying to survive.”

Posted by: Parma Hts Gary | September 12, 2011, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm

Like Henry Ford, you’re totally free to create a prosperous business that provides the middle class with well-paying jobs plus generous benefits. Millions have done it. Who’s stopping you?

“The trickle down theory worked when Henry Ford decided he wanted his workers to be able to buy the cars they made. Then the money started to grow. Kill the middle class, and all you will have is 2% of the country trying to support itself, and there is only so much demand out there when everyone is just trying to survive.”

Posted by: Parma Hts Gary | September 12, 2011, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm

Don’t expect a knee-jerk right winger to understand, they only have their talking points to fall back on and their bumper sticker slogans like “we’re all free to become rich!”. Welcome to Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood.

Posted by: Janet | September 12, 2011, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm

Barney Frank pushed to exempt Fannie/Freddie from Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) regulations, which were designed to expose accounting irregulaties such as the ones at Enron. His obstruction delayed regulators from discovering that Frank Raines was responsible for an $11 billion accounting scandal af Fannie Mae. The Enron executives went to prison. Frank Raines, a Democrat, took his millions in compensation and currently lives a life of luxury. Taxpayers covered the losses.

From Wikipedia:

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration’s belief that Congress “neither has the tools, nor the stature” for adequate oversight. Frank stated, “These two entities …are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his “famous dice roll”: “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing.”

“Don’t expect a knee-jerk right winger to understand, they only have their talking points to fall back on and their bumper sticker slogans like “we’re all free to become rich!”.”

Posted by: Janet | September 12, 2011, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm

We ARE all free to become rich. Many hard-working first generation immigrants have done it. But I’ve never met anyone with your attitude who achieved it. You can’t become what you hate.

So now $200k is rich?

The Republicans should pass whatever Obama wants so when things go from bad to worse, he gets hammered harder and the nation finally can see that govt spending and taxing the wealthy does not work no matter how good it feels to say so. Then, the clean up can begin without all the handwringing and finger pointing and name calling from the left.

1995‐2006: Republicans control Congress. Not only do they fail to enact any GSE or predatory lending reform, but they actually block Democratic reform efforts at the state and federal levels.

2007: Democrats take control of Congress and Rep. Frank becomes Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. After only three months in the majority, Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee produce a tough GSE reform bill on March 29, 2007. The House passes the bill within five months on May 22, 2007. The House also passes tough measures to protect consumers from predatory lenders and to prohibit the “liar loans” that were so prevalent in the run‐up to the financial crisis.

Posted by: Janet | September 12, 2011, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm

I found your source. It’s just propaganda and mythology from Democrats whose hands are very dirty.

By the way, Obama is once again pushing for more subprime lending. Sounds like Democrats are stuck on stupid.

2004: Under President Bush, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announces that it will require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also known as the Government‐Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) “to increase their purchase of mortgages for low‐ and moderate‐income families and underserved communities.” In a Bloomberg News article, Congressman Frank criticizes the new rules, saying the White House “could do some harm if you don’t refine the goals.” In order to meet these new requirements, the GSEs begin purchasing mortgage‐backed securities made up of subprime loans.

This is very telling . . . and explains a lot of what went on.

Posted by: Chuck | September 12, 2011, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm

First off, the definition of welfare isn’t not paying income taxes, particularly when an effort is made to extend tax cuts to the middle class and small business owners to stimulate the economy. If you’ve noticed tax cuts don’t do that much to stimulate the economy, I agree. I’ve noticed that, too. Welfare actually refers to aid in the form of monies and necessities– such as ag, oil and WalMart subsidies. Welfare can also refer to the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group. Food stamps are welfare and it is unfortunate that the state of our economy is such that so many people qualify for them.

Often, when I listen to middle class or well far right Republicans and their tea party demogogue and demonize, using terms like Welfare Queens, etc, I’m reminded of this quote: “Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.”
-Melville

So, in Wisconsin, the tea party cheered the downgrade. Tonight during the debate the tea party crowd cheered letting an uninsured man die (yeah! they yelled). Last week, the GOP crowd was cheering executions. Santorum conflated Latino voters and illegal immigrants. Perry was booed for taking the right stance in his state when it comes to immigrants getting in-state tuition rates.

Alan Grayson is correct. He was correct when he criticized the Republican plan for universal health care and rising costs (don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly). And he is correct in his observation about tea partiers cheering the death of the hypothetical uninsured 30 y.o. : “It’s the same impulse that led people in the Coliseum to cheer when the lions ate the Christians. And that seems to be where we are heading — bread and circuses, without the bread. The world that Hobbes wrote about — “the war of all against all.”‘

Question for tea partiers: from your perspective, did Michele Bachmann win the debate? That’s the header at another ABC blog, that she won. I thought she brought up points that are allegedly important to the tea party, or so they say, but I didn’t really think there was a winner. Romney and Perry come off as the frontrunners. Newt is smart but a jerk. I think someone on CNN said Huntsman comes off as a teacher whose class you want to cut, and I agree with that. Herman Cain is likable, as is Ron Paul… but Paul always gets cut off. Those two seem the least politican-like and affected. They are who they are. Anyway, did Michele win from a tea partier’s persepctive?

“in a free country all are free to become rich.”

Just don’t try to organize your community or labor, yeah?

Posted by: Kimberly | September 13, 2011, 12:22 am 12:22 am

Go ahead and shoot for the bumper sticker ‘Get Rich!” but don’t try to negotiate a decent living wage – you will suddenly be a ‘thug’ AND the cause of the country going to ruin. Those who hoard all the money and make massive fortunes because of their capital are heroes, but the ones who actually do the labor and try to feed and educate their families are ‘thugs’. We love America.

(Sorry, web page didnt like my and .)

Kinda late in the thread, but I’d agree with others, and most economists, that you shouldn’t concentrate on reducing the yearly budget deficit during a recession. That is unfortunately what the broken-record Tea Party people are obsessed with, including the fiasco over the debt limit raising. A sound plan in economics terms is either to cut taxes **in a way that specifically causes economic and job growth**, OR for the government to increase its spending, again in a way that increses growth. Not just tax breaks for the rich and big corporations, that **do not have to be** used for any growth-related purpose.

It is well-documented that military spending has a lower “multiplier” effect than domestic civilian spending, so Bush’s wars have hurt our economy. It’s also clear that you get more benefit from rebuilding a needed bridge or improving public transit, in the US, than in paying for military expenses and ammunition for an unneeded Iraq war.

Obama has to be insane to think he can get taxes raised to pay for a useless stimulus that keeps too many people working at the wrong jobs, ie; Government Service Sector Jobs.

The only hope Barry has is to pay for his Stimulus with a 2 to 1 Cut package.
$400 Billion in Obama Stimulus – $800 Billion in Federal Program Cuts.

I think this whole new stimulus proposal is designed to try and help him get re-elected. He can’t believe he can get this thing passed funded the Demos way.
If he really thinks he can then he needs a name change
Barack Insane Obama

discreet tool wrote, “So now $200k is rich?”

MOST people in this country would agree that an individual making $16,666.00 a MONTH is rich. Considering that 3 months at THAT income level equals the average YEARLY income for a family of 4…..

Searambler | September 13, 2011, 8:20 am 8:20 am ______ You are under the assumption that it is Obama’s plan or GOP for the rich. If the GOP reject this, and I believe they will, that doesn’t mean they are solely for the rich. I find it comical that the GOP got ALL OF US tax breaks, which helped middle andlower class, and now the Dems only want to raise it on the rich. The Democrats scream the GOP is for the rich and their knuckle dragging followers believe it all the way, because they can’t think for themselves.

Posted by: Searambler | September 13, 2011, 8:20 am 8:20 am

SeaRambler, you win the Strawman-o-da-Day Award™ for 13-09-11.
Transparent, full of holes, false choices galore, a cacophony of confused lib-thought.
Good Show!

The job creators should receive tax credits, not tax cuts. And if the price of gas goes up when oil subsidies are rescinded, alternatives and ingenuity will pop up as the competition, too long the monopoly.

What is amazing to me is that many you people seem to think that RICH people actually create jobs! What makes you think that ALL rich people own companies and create jobs, or EVEN own small businesses? Has there been a poll? I cannot believe that fairly closing loop holes, and taxing people on earned income at the same rate everyone else pay’s is wrong? What is UNFAIR about this? Do they NOT use or benefit from the same services provided ot the rest of America? And to all those espousing that “corporations” should NOT be taxed to promote growth – you are WRONG – corporations are more flush than ever – they are NOT expanding or creating jobs because everyone is to afraid to move because of this ridiculous government in-fighting – the PRESIDENT IS stating a way forward – do and then everything else will follow. Everyone is waiting for a DECISION to be made – if we have to wait 14 months – then we will go nowhere. Congress is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG Americans want a way forward out of this mess and congress is NOT helping! Then they can blame the “black guy” !

This is a handout bill, it isn’t a jobs bill unless you count temporarily hiring more cops and teachers we don’t need.
I cannot believe how clueless this admin. is. He hopes everyone is paying attention to his useless words and not his actions, some of which include:

Holding up approval of a new oil pipeline from Canada to the US. Approval helps secure new jobs and oil we need.
Stopping Boeing from creating new jobs in South Carolina, just because they are not union jobs.
Handing out work permits to illegal aliens.
Telling Gibson guitars they will back off on prosecution if they offshore their American jobs to Madagascar.
Holding up oil drilling and imposing crusing new regulations on the coal industry, driving up prices for all Americans and especially hurting the poor.
Etc. etc.
Pay no attention to what the man behind the curtain says. Pay attention to what he does.

LOL! Well of COURSE the useful idiots on the Right are against this jobs bill. THEY DON’T WANT LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT!!! If unemployment goes down, so does their chance of winning in 2012. It’s really that simple. They are ready, willing and able to destroy the American economy in order to further their political agenda. AS ALWAYS!!!!!!!!

POSTED BY: KIMBERLY | SEPTEMBER 13, 2011, 10:11 AM 10:11 AM. What universe do you live in??????

“Kinda late in the thread, but I’d agree with others, and most economists, that you shouldn’t concentrate on reducing the yearly budget deficit during a recession.”

Posted by: Doug C | September 13, 2011, 6:34 am 6:34 am

Are these the same economists who are always UNEXPECTEDLY SURPRISED that the economic numbers never seem to come in the way they predicted? Every single month?

Who said we were in a recession other than the unemployed? The economy didnt grow no one has said anything about it retracking

Sure close tax loop holes for the rich…Because after all they will create jobs and everyone will be happy like they always have been.