TAX CUTS ARE 42% AND ONLY 58% SPENDING??? I guess the GOP won

[Pryderi]

this battle.

[bdamomma]

1. they haven't voted on it yet have they?

crap it just never stops. 2010 no repigs are being voted in period.

[dgibby]

3. No.

This is the compromise worked out with Collins,Nelson,et al. Now it goes to the entire senate, then back to the house, etc. Maybe it'll get to the Prez before the country goes completely bankrupt.

[Bonn1997]

2. Is it just a coincidence it reflects the composition of the Senate?

58% Dems, 58% spending.

[last_texas_dem]

8. Wow, that's way too close for comfort to the Limbaugh suggestion

of splitting it into spending/tax cuts based on Obama's and McCain's percentages of the 2008 presidential vote...

[IGotAName]

4. I'll say it again- tax cuts for WHOM?

Any more information than that?

[stray cat]

6. Reid said "Middle Class" tax cuts make up the tax cuts

[IGotAName]

7. LOL- and that's BAD?

That's NECESSARY for our economy! It's centered around middle class, consumer spending. Those tax cuts are, short term, as important as anything in there.

[stray cat]

9. Yea - I'm going to wait and see what the bill says before I form an opinion

it may be an ok bill.

[Lorien]

11. Not to the millions of unemployed people they aren't

tax cuts helped create this mess. They sure as hell won't fix it.

[stray cat]

13. Bush tax cuts created the mess - they were too the wealthy.

I think the extension to unemployment benefits is still in the bill. Lets see what the bill actually includes.

[sandnsea]

33. Is Medicaid for the unemployed?

Those are the things that would have made so much difference. The extension to unemployment benefits is a gimme, they almost never follow through with a demand to end that extension.

[OwnedByFerrets]

41. Yes its fucking bad. Tax cuts NEVER stimulate a

god damned economy. :mad: History doesnt lie.....unless its written by a repug.

[Honeycombe8]

66. Well....if poor and lower middle class people get more $, history shows they SPEND IT. Stimulates

the economy.

History has shown that if wealthy people, or upper middle class, people get tax cuts, they save it, they invest it, whatever. But it doesn't stimulate the economy too much, BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXPENDABLE INCOME TO BUY WHAT THEY WANT, ANYWAY, so the tax cut makes almost no difference in their spending.

[OwnedByFerrets]

71. Tax cuts generate $1.03 return on the dollar. Infrastructure

funding generated $1.49 minimum on the dollar. Which one makes more sense??

[Political Heretic]

82. That's actually NOT what history shows at all. See Economic Policy Institute or CBPP

History shows, especially in an economic downturn, that people spend money from tax cuts in ways that don't stimulate growth, i.e. saving it or paying off debt.

[Duer 157099]

50. Considering what they consider "middle class"

Yes, it's bad - to them, if you earn >$500k per year you're probably "middle class"

Upper class is the billionaires

[amborin]

17. big capital gains tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy

[IGotAName]

19. Link? nt

[stray cat]

28. Not that I've seen - do you have something to back up the observation?

[amborin]

38. here's the ratio of spending to tax cuts:

"The size of the package has been reduced to around $767 billion from the original $885 billion plan the Senate brought to the floor on Monday, Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee said.

The spending side has been reduced from $349 billion to $263 billion, while the tax credits have been reduced from $342 billion to $324 billion, Conrad said...."

<
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123393201756256999.html>

so that leaves almost $180 billion in tax cuts

i'm not sure what form these tax cuts will take

the de Mint proposal was for capital gains tax cuts and cuts in corporate taxes

it remains to be seen

[Abq_Sarah]

26. I could go for it

If it were in the form of a payroll tax holiday.

6 months would cost about 300 million and it would immediately put money back into the hands of workers and employers.

There's no chance they'll go for it though. :(

[bklyncowgirl]

83. According to the NYT the Republicans want to cut back the proposed middle class tax cut Obama wanted

Nice isn't it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/politics/08stimulus.html?hp

[Thrill]

5. House has got to change this

[ChiciB1]

10. Sure Do... But DINO's Are Screwing Us AGAIN!!! n/t

[spooky3]

12. I thought Tweety said 48 vs. 52%?

[jenmito]

14. No. 42%-58%.

[spooky3]

20. well that's not as bad- thanks.

[jenmito]

23. No problem!

[ProSense]

15. Weren't there more tax cuts than spending when the bill started? And

why are the tax cuts bad if they're the ones included by Dems?

In fact, if cuts were made to education are put back in, the tax-cut percentage would increase.

[book_worm]

16. Yes, Tax Cuts have always been a big part of the package.

[Whalestoe]

18. In fact, wasn't it originally going to be 60-40?

[Pryderi]

21. 66-34...it was 2-1 in the beginning.

[sandnsea]

29. 66 spending, 34 tax cuts n/t

[Whalestoe]

34. Ughhh... It should have stayed that!

[amandabeech]

56. My recollection is that those tax cuts were that large because the Pubbies

demanded them, and Obama wanted their votes. Remember him wanting this to pass by 80 votes to 18 in a show of bipartisanship?

Krugman says that tax cuts simply don't have as great a stimulative effect as spending. I tend to take Krugman's statements as true unless shown otherwise.

Therefore, since the bill has a high proportion of tax cuts, it is likely to have less stimulative effect per dollar than an all-spending package.

Why not, then, have a smaller, all-spending package?

Less debt to repay (which seems to be a Republican bug-a-boo) and just as much stimulative effect.

[sandnsea]

30. NO, tax cuts were not the bigger part of the package

And I wonder if Rachel wishes she'd just kept her big mouth shut right about now.

[sandnsea]

27. No there weren't

It was about 30% tax cuts when it started, and they were primarily refundable EIC and child tax credits that would have really went to working people.

Now they've got a $15,000 housing credit and a new car credit, as if that's the problem with people getting a loan. More tax cuts for the wealthiest.

And they cut billions out of programs that would help those who have lost their jobs.

It's stupid.

[ProSense]

40. The new car credit was proposed by a Dem

The housing credit, which will most likely not survive in its current form, was voted for by nearly all the Dems. I guess they wanted something in there to work out in Conference.

There is also a bill, which Kerry co-sponsored, addressing low-income housing.

[sandnsea]

53. I don't care, it's stupid

I heard Barbara Mikulski supporting it, it's still stupid. As is the $15,000 tax cut to buy a new house.

The proposal that was already in there, that would let low income people waive the repayment of down-payment assistance for 2 years, now that is good. That's the kind of proposal JK usually comes up with.

But the only people who are going to benefit from this $15,000 tax cut to buy a new house are the wealthiest. There are people right on this board who don't understand what it means to be in the top 2% of income earners in the US, I'm not surprised that some Democrats in Congress don't either.

[bornskeptic]

67. You're misunderstanding the $15,000 housing "credit."

It works similar ly to the current $7,500 credit. It's not really a tax credit in the usual sense. It's an interest-free loan. Any first-time homebuyer can benefit, which actually means anyone who hasn't owned a personal residence in three years. My wife and I will benefit on the basis of the $96,000 condo which we bought in August. Our tax liability would otherwise only be around $2000, so we'll get back all of our withholding and about $5500 additional. We then will have to pay back $500 a year for 15 years. This is not at all a provision targeted at the wealthy. The information on the $7500 credit is given in the link below. Think it over and I'm sure you'll change your mind.

http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/home.html

[sandnsea]

68. They are giving it to everybody

They are changing it so it isn't just for first-time homebuyers and it isn't just a 2 year waiver.

I support the provision as it was originally written, as I said, although I don't think it goes back to homes bought last August. I think it only starts in homes bought since December 08 and in 2009. The waiver provision, not the credit itself.

In any event, the Senate is changing it to make it available to everybody and it will also no longer be refundable. So you figure out who is going to have a $15,000 tax bill.

[onenote]

81. exactly -- which is why you were wrong to say only the wealthiest would benefit

Upthread you made the following statement "the only people who are going to benefit from this $15,000 tax cut to buy a new house are the wealthiest."

That's not the case at all. First the tax credit is 10 percent of the purchase price of the house, up to $15,000. So, if you buy a $100,000 house, the credit is $10,000; if you buy a $150,000 house, its $15,000. If you buy a $200,000 house, its $15,000. If you buy a $2 million house, its $15,000.

While you are right that taxpayers with $15,000 of tax liability and up will likely be able to claim the full credit, its not as if those who have tax bills of under $15K won't benefit from the credit.

[leftstreet]

22. Maybe this is proof the 'Financial Crisis' was a big scam?

:shrug:

[Zynx]

24. Looks like we won. Also, those tax cuts are disproportionately middle and lower class cuts.

We won. They lost.

[IGotAName]

25. Kaboom.

Now where are those HOSANNAS!?!

:P

[sandnsea]

31. The new ones aren't

The ones we already had, that Krugman pissed all over, those were.

We've lost money for state and local services, and gained a bunch of tax cuts for the top 10% because nobody else can get a loan to use tax cuts for a house or a new car.

[Zynx]

32. There's not a single marginal rate reduction. That's what the Republicans wanted.

They didn't get it. They lost.

[sandnsea]

35. They're not done, they're going to keep fighting

Just heard it on CNN. They're winning, there's more to the tax code than marginal rates.

They cut $14 billion in school construction. How stupid is that. What is wrong with our Democrats to let them take that out.

[Zynx]

36. If you listen to the Republican economists, they maintain all that will help the

economy is marginal rate reductions. They haven't gotten them.

[sandnsea]

37. Then you're not listening

Because that is not what they're saying at all.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI=

[RollWithIt]

52. You didn't link to a Republican Economic Expert...

You linked the a garbage opinion heat piece that stated that the stimulus not having the votes to pass was "good news." That was a bout it.

[WinkyDink]

61. "Disproportionately" is not a positive connotation.

[mmonk]

39. Don't they always?

[Still Sensible]

42. The only saving grace is that the tax relief in the bill

is NOT the same type tax cuts that the Bushies shoved down our throats over and over again.

[Imagevision]

43. The repugs want the Donald Trump crowd to benefit from tax cuts and Texaco/Chevron...

[GeorgeGist]

44. Of course the bottom line is profit ...

at current margins, Mr. Profit can expect to receive about 64% of the economic pie.

70% from tax cuts, and 60% from spending.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

45. Well, who didn't see this coming...

I'm hoping these are the Middle Class Tax Cuts, but I won't hold my breath considering who was invited to gut the bill, (Collins, Repugs, Blue Dogs). Who's willing to bet that in a move of Pug unity they all vote against it, but it still passes thanks to their willing Dem friends.

Harry Reid needs to go.

[amborin]

47. there are some middle class tax

cuts...

and...

". Dick Durbin of Illinois confirmed Democrats were in a tough debate over cutting what they saw as core programs. He singled out education as one of the largest areas of cuts -- and one of the hardest for Democrats to swallow.

"It's a painful area for all of us, as Democrats, to make these cuts in education assistance," he said.

There are "substantial" proposed cuts to a $79 billion fund created to help states deal with the economic crisis by giving them more money for schools, Durbin said..."

<http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/stimulus/index.html>

[RollWithIt]

51. SEVENTY NINE BILLION, NOT SEVENTY NINE MILLION, BILLION. 79 BILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously people. They're just teasing out the number. They'll cut it to "only 35-50 Billion" over the original 79 billion. Welcome to the new era where Democrats now understand the media.

[Hamlette]

46. Obama promised tax cuts. They only win this round if you say they did.

[RollWithIt]

48. I guess 500 Billion in direct spending isn't enough?

Seriously?

[amborin]

49. not exactly

"Officials put the cost of the bill at $827 billion, including Obama's signature tax cut of up to $1,000 for working couples, even if they earn too little to pay income taxes. Also included are breaks for homebuyers and people buying new cars. Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of unemployment compensation, health care and food stamps.

<snip>

In a key reduction from the bill that reached the Senate floor earlier in the week, $40 billion would be cut from a "fiscal stabilization fund" for state governments' education costs, though $14 billion to boost the maximum for college Pell Grants by $400 to $5,250 would be preserved, as would aid to local school districts for the No Child Left Behind law and special education.

A plan to help the unemployed purchase health insurance would be reduced to a 50 percent subsidy instead of two-thirds...."

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/dem-stimulus-deal-reached_n_164808.html>


where are the 'shovel ready' projects????

[JohnnieGordon]

54. He was more interested in being bipartisan..

than saving millions of people from catastrophe. Everyone's supposed to love Obama, including Republicans, so he doesn't have to choose sides. That's all he cared about. Very selfish, reckless and just sad.

[amandabeech]

57. Republicans aren't bipartisan.

Why Obama didn't figure that out in his four years in the Senate, I don't know.

One of my housemates, who previously was either Republican or non-political, voted for Obama because Obama is a "new kind of politician" who will get things done without partisanship.

I told the guy that the Republicans wouldn't care--they're not going to give Obama easy victories because they're extremely partisan.

This one should be a real eye-opener for those who thought that Obama could enforce bipartisanship from the top down.

[Undercurrent]

60. Totaly untrue bs!

Read FrenchieCat's informed and informative thread with links to the following:

President Obama's Original Price Tag was 775 BILLION!


1)Obama proposes job stimulus of up to $775 billion


2)Obama, who takes office on January 20, has drafted a stimulus plan expected to reach some 775 billion dollars or more, warning that if this were not implemented the recession and double-digit employment could linger for years.


3)Obama will propose tax cuts totaling 300 billion dollars over two years, or around 40 percent of a package that could top 775 billion dollars, a transition source said on condition of anonymity.

[Undercurrent]

79. Oops. Forgot the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8174938

[Numba6]

75. No, it isn't

Senate Republicans and the Stimulus: Playing Politics When the Economy Burns

So, Senate Republicans say to themselves, what's to lose?

Plenty.

Millions more jobs and a full-fledged Depression, for example...

The issue is how to revive the economy. When consumers and businesses can't or won't spend enough to keep the economy going, government has to be the spender of last resort. Period.

-- Robert Reich

[tavalon]

55. Who go t the tax cuts? That actually matters. you know?

[amandabeech]

58. Krugman has written that tax cuts aren't as effective in stimulating the economy

as spending.

So the amount of tax cuts vs. spending in this bill does matter, unless Krugman is wrong.

[depakid]

59. Krugman is absolutely correct- and the Dems DID LOSE -or sold us out again

Obama had better hope that his extraordinary luck as a politician translates into luck on the economic and administrative front- because if it doesn't- and the economy continues to spiral downward, he's a one term president- and the Dems go back to the minority.

Like or no- they own the economy as an issue now.

As Dr. Graham White of the University of Sydney pointed out yesterday:

Anyone arguing for tax cut commits a basic fallacy that would not go unpunished in an introductory economics course: one dollar of direct expenditure by government will generate greater demand, greater production of goods and services and hence greater employment than one dollar given as a tax cut.

This reflects the fact that typically not all of the tax cut - in contrast to the government expenditure increase - will be spent, and hence not all of the extra dollar's income will go to extra demand for goods and services.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/cash-in-hand-worth-more-than-coalitions-tax-cut-push/2009/02/05/1233423400728.html

Unfortunately- (and unlike Repblicans) the Democratic leadership lacks the resolve and political fortitude and the media skills to put translate this very basic priciple into law.

[amandabeech]

62. Pelosi also screwed up by putting programs into the House bill

that did not sound like the brick and mortar stuff that the White House was pushing.

That gave the Repuglicans more ammo in the Senate.

And frankly, surprised me. I was expecting more money for bridge repairs, weatherproofing homes, subsidizing financing for making wind turbines here, building more mass transit, you name it.

The whole thing could have been done better, IMHO.

Obama may be relying too much on getting individuals to call, fax or e-mail their reps and senators than on sending emissaries to throw recalcitrant Dems up against the wall.

Also, the Republican Senators are impervious to anything but tsunamis of angry voters, and most are from states filled with conservative voters who don't like the stimulus plan anyway. There won't be enough popular pressure from them until things get much worse.

Things are going downhill fast in the real world, and Mr. Cool is going to have to get hot and mean to get things done.

[JohnnieGordon]

72. Well I saw it coming..

I knew what "post-partisan" meant, I knew he'd habitually screw liberals over just when we desperately need an unapologetic liberal president most.

[Baikonour]

63. This bill won't hit Obama's desk for weeks now.

Can we afford that? No.

Congratulations, repukes. You may actually get your wish of a destroyed country.

[berni_mccoy]

64. Depends on who those tax cuts are for

[Honeycombe8]

65. I heard on TV the tax cuts ARE MAINLY TO THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS. If true,

then the Repubs didn't win. :)

[bottomtheweaver]

69. Sure,the poor and middle class who are shopping for new houses and cars.

See the problem?

[Jennicut]

70. Oh please. If McLame had won we would have all tax cuts and zero spending.

[Numba6]

73. yeppers...American Jobs Held Hostage by Republicans... ain't bipartisanship wunnerful in

American Jobs Held Hostage by Republicans

[Clear Blue Sky]

74. Uh...this isn't the final bill....

[Life Long Dem]

76. Oh come on. That involves an actual discussion.

[Quezacoatl]

77. If the GOP won we would see most of them vote for it

Somehow I don't see that happening

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Depends on who the tax cuts go to. Lower and middle income folks could use a break.

[BlooInBloo]

80. You're kidding, right?

[Titanothere]

84. Where were these spending items...

...before the imperative stimulus package came into being? This whole thing is a little puzzling. Are these spending requests due to falloffs in tax receipts or just things that never got passed before? After the last trillion seemed to evaporate, I'm pretty skeptical about whatever's in this one, we're all going to pay for it.