What we got versus What they got. The tax compromise illustrated (again).

[jefferson_dem]

How the White House will sell angry House Dems on tax cut deal
By Greg Sargent

The White House is privately circulating a new chart among House Democrats -- sent over by a source -- that is designed to prove to them that the tax deal Obama got out of Republicans is really a victory for Democrats.

It's a pretty interesting chart -- a sign that the White House is gearing up for a full court press to sell the deal to angry House Dems who are vowing to block it:



Note in particular that the chart stresses: "What Obama and Democrats got." That's an effort to persuade Dems that they can claim a stake in the good aspects of the deal: The extension of unemployment insurance and various tax credits.

<SNIP>

House Dems are particularly incensed over the estate tax provisions, which sets a far more generous exemption and lower maximum rate than Dems wanted. But as the chart shows, the White House's pushback will be that what Republicans got from the estate tax provision is dwarfed by what Dems got. Same goes for the tax cuts for the rich. Indeed, the thrust of the chart is to persuade Democrats that they, and not Republicans, can claim victory in the great tax cut standoff.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/how_the_white_house_will_sell.html#

[Beetwasher]

1. Yes, This Is Pretty Decent, But You Know What The Bottom line Is? People WERE Going To Get HURT

When UI ran out and the Repubs didn't care and don't care and would have gone to the mat and allowed it to happen. Everyone knows this. There would be little or no backlash against them because the majority of the public would not be properly informed of what happened and why and who was responsible.

[niceypoo]

4. The Bush tax cuts caused the unemployment

More Bush tax cuts mean even longer unemployment.

What was it that Chris Mathews said? "We are all Neocons now"

[Beetwasher]

7. Umm, Bullshit, The Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Create Jobs, But To Claim They CAUSED UE Is A Stretch

and there are other job creating factors in effect AND included in this second stimulus. Hell, UI can help creae jobs by keeping the economy above water because people without jobs who get UI SPEND IT. In addition the payroll tax cut IS extra money in peoples checks IMMEDIATELY that WILL be spent by people who need it the most and THAT will pump money into the economy and create jobs.

Explain how the Upper Income tax break extension kills jobs.

So, you would rather people starve when their UI runs out? And it WILL.

[rbixby]

24. If we don't take republicans to the mat on this

Then what else do we have to compromise? Are we to be held hostage and have our country in a constant state of emergency at the mercy of republicans? A hurting economy creates an environment where republicans feel like they can force big tax breaks for their buddies on the rest of us, and continue the status quo of big government spending and nothing to pay for it with.
What we need to do is not let fear stand in the way of doing what's right, and the right thing to do here is look at the long term health of the economy, not just the current problems. If the UI isn't extended, the fault lies not on our laps, but on those who seek to increase the disparity between rich and poor. You have to remember that an awful lot of the unemployed right now are republicans too, and they'll be hurting their own constituency by letting them expire.
Remember, without any more demand, there is no need to increase the supply. Businesses are sitting on more money than they ever have in history, the last thing they need is another tax break. We can't be called upon to compromise our principals every time republicans threaten something like this, otherwise what concessions will we give when the next manufactured crisis comes along? Giving in now is just the first step, and yes, it might be hard, and yes, some people might get hurt in the short term. What we need to do is look down the road, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, and see where this 'compromise' that Obama has suggested will leave us. It will leave us in a perpetual state of crisis, one which we might never emerge from. Sometimes fighting the good fight requires sacrifice, and sometimes it really sucks, but we must stick to our principals through thick and thin if we're going to have any principals at all.

[Beetwasher]

25. Take Them To The Mat!!! Draw Lines And FUCK The Unemployed!!!!

Who cares if they lose their house and can't feed their kids! There's ideology at stake here!

[rbixby]

26. So you're saying that

we should have huge giveaways to the rich and saddle the country with more debt for the next 2 years or 10 years? That we should just roll over and take the bone that's been thrown to us, instead of fighting for what is good for everyone in the long term?
How many times do we give up on our ideals for some short term help? This isn't about ideology, its about doing what's right, and putting one small right thing in with a huge package of wrong things doesn't make the entire thing better. That's like saying adding a little sugar to your cyanide will make it easier to swallow, but its still poison.
Remember, a big part of the reason we are where we are in this country right now is because of the Bush tax cuts, and what will happen in 2 years when all of this comes up for a vote again? More tax cuts rammed down our throats, more cuts to social services, more giveaways to the rich.
We need to look at the big picture here. Unemployment benefits might stop for a short time, but republicans don't want people starving in the streets either, they'll just threaten it to try to get more concessions out of Obama, and keep us in a state of crisis until they get everything they want.

[Beetwasher]

27. So You're Saying That Unemployed Should Lose Their Benefits So You Can Have Your Ideological Stance?

So they should go without food and housing so you can draw your line in the sand?

Jan 1, no more UE for a LOT of people. That's ok for you? IOW, fuck 'em. You got your ideological stance to think about! Let them eat that!

[rbixby]

29. Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment

January 1, another one of the 'biggest giveaways to big republican contributors, and a destruction of social security'. Neither one is good, but one involves making a deal with the devil and the other does not.
Its like saying "Well if we don't let Hitler take away all the Jews, he's going to bomb our city". Which end of the bargain do you pick there? Personally I'd rather not make a deal with the devil and deal with the consequences. In the long run, the consequences of the tax plan Obama proposed will be a lot worse than the present crisis. So sell your soul for some immediate relief, or stick to your guns and make the whole picture better?
In a lot of ways its a lose lose situation, but personally I think its important to ensure the future of our country in the long run. So if you can explain to me how the Obama/Republican plan is going to be good for the future, for our futures, for the futures of our children, and for the future of our country, then I'll agree with you. Until then, I'm going with the plan that works in the long run. Folding on this issue now for some short term relief is simply not an option to me. Explain to me how its a good idea to drop billions and billions of dollars off of federal tax roles when the main engine for job creation in this kind of economy is government spending, since private businesses can obviously not be depended upon to create jobs with their already low tax rates.
No matter what, things are going to suck for someone, whether it be the unemployed now, those depending on social security and medicare later, children needing education, the environment, the middle class. There is no way to please everybody in the short term, but in the long term, Obama's plan is going to hurt an awful lot more people than it will help.
Its not okay that republicans are holding unemployment hostage over this, but its not my choice for them to do that, and to allow one party to hold the other hostage over something like this is just one step in losing the entire country to some sort of republican libertarian utopia where we're all slaves to the 'haves' and will forever be 'have nots'.
What I'm saying, in essence, is that this 'deal' is a trick, its a flimflam, a bamboozle, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that is why I can't support it.

[Beetwasher]

30. No, Fuck That, People Need Their UE benefits NOW, Not Some Fear Mongering Bullshit About A Secret

plan of Obama's to steal SS.

[mikekohr]

45. Bingo! dropping people from UE benefits now

is asinine, will drag the economy down,and is a really shitty thing to do.

From "A Wonderful Life"
Mr Potter (R): Foreclose on them.
George (D): I can't, They have children!
Mr Potter (R): Well there're not my children.

[Teaser]

31. #godwinfail

.

[Kweli4Real]

38. My Question Still Stands ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9745856

[ClassWarrior]

49. You'd rather just fuck SOME of the unemployed, huh?

The 99ers don't count, huh? Collateral damage?

NGU.

[mikekohr]

37. Here Is The Graph On the Job Creation Record By President and Party

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Zvl-nui8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/3j0wUSj78mk/s640/Job+growth+graph.jpg?

Many Americans are aware that George W. Bush has had the worst job creation record since the government began tracking these figures in 1939. But Bush's colossal failure to manage the economy overshadows a much larger story.



The record shows two unmistakable patterns:
Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat in the White House, the job creation rate plummets.
Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican in the White House, the job growth rate soars. Every time! No exceptions!

Considering the steady growth in population of the United States during this time frame the job creation rate should steadily increase each month (currently it must grow by 138,000 per month to keep up with population growth). This trend only manifests itself when examining Democratic administrations:

Listed below is the average job growth increase for all terms served:


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Z6xo0qSnI/AAAAAAAAACY/p8SkoEnN5dw/s640/job+creation+by+president.jpg?



By: mike kohr Graphics by: Bonny Kohr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

[Beetwasher]

41. No Shit, Repubs Don't Produce Jobs, Investment Does, But That Doesn't Mean

Tax cuts necessarily lead to job losses. There are more important factors. The graphs don't prove the causality of job losses merely the existence of them.

[mikekohr]

42. Agreed, The Failure of The Republican Party to Create Jobs Is Related to Their Overall

economic policy, which includes increased spending in areas not productive to long term economic growth.

?
The two biggest promises of "Trickle Down Economics" are it's greatest failings. Proponents of "Trickle Down Economics” claim that tax cuts, skewed to the rich, will create jobs and increase tax revenues. The graph above disproves the latter claim. Job creation plummets under "Trickle Down Economics (see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html )and nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican leadership (see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html ).

Two things are certain to grow when a Republican is in the White House, unemployment and the National Debt.


By contrast, "Bubble Up" economnic priciples practiced by Democratic Administrations put people to work, rev up the economy, and balance the Nation's ledger books. Every time. No exceptions.

[Beetwasher]

43. And That Means That The Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Will Not Kill Jobs By Themselves

And considering other stimulative measure may not have much of an effect on jobs at all. There's no proof the Bush tax cuts were responsible for the job losses. None at all. The graphs prove nothing.

[mikekohr]

44. The graphs prove a number of things.

1). Tax cuts targeted at the rich have NOT generated promised job growth or increased government revenues.

2). Tax cuts for the rich, coupled with increased spending on Republican priorities (the actual definition of Tinkle Down Economics) EXPLODES the deficit. see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/national-debt.html

3). No Republican president has EVER managed to produce jobs at anywhere near the level as achieved by Democratic presidents.

The Republican Economic model is not broken. It was never designed to help working people. Not once. And it is producing exactly what it was intended to: fubar, failure, and "F" up.

[jaxx]

2. Looks like the President drove a hard bargain.

Thanks for the chart.

K&R

[niceypoo]

We got another Bush supply side stimulus package

It will add two additional years of unemployment, and will causes wages to drop.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. How Will It Cause Wages To Drop?

The reason most conservatives hate unemployment insurance is because it acts as a floor on wages. If a person is getting unemployment he has some time to find a job as good as the job he lost. Without unemployment insurance an electrican who was making $75,000 a year would have to take the first job he could find which might be an $8.00 an hour job flipping hamburgers at Wendys...

[niceypoo]

28. Depressed wages are one effect of Supply side economics

Under Bush supply side, median incomes and wages were down, poverty was up, job growth was anemic, and unemployment soared.

More supply side = longer unemployment. The cancer is not the cure.

[Enrique]

3. wow, Greg Sargent really has chosen sides hasn't he

including the Payroll Tax Holiday as "what we got"? "We", being people who are sure never to be dependent on Social Security to keep them out of poverty?

edit: oops, I was wrong about Sargent, he's just reporting on the WH propaganda, not endorsing it.

[peace13]

9. And the other side got a tax cut on their first 250 K as well.

Whoops.

[tishaLA]

34. Greg has also posted this:

from MoveOn. It's probably a better representation of what we got.

[donco6]

6. Pretty funny!

Love how they've switched it to look at the impact to the budget, rather than impact to PEOPLE. The reality is the "What They Got" pile is distributed to very few wealthy people who get to see hundreds of thousands of dollars of impact INDIVIDUALLY. While the other pile is distributed to millions and millions of people, who get to see a small amount.

This way, you almost think, "Wow, look at what those poor filthy rich people got. Their pile is so teeny tiny . . . I feel bad for them."

Almost.

[peace13]

8. Check the numbers, 238 billion divided by how many folks?

And 114 billion divided by how many folks. That is where the disgust is. And to it the fact that we will be borrowing it Add to it the fact that 24 months of tax cuts for 13 months of unemployment. Why are we still talking about this bad deal?

[JoePhilly]

32. Is our tax system based on ABSOLUTE numbers or PERCENTAGES?

The right wing uses your same framing to claim that the rich pay more in absolute numbers as they fight about PERCENTAGE of taxes.

[subterranean]

10. Shouldn't "What We Got" include the tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent?

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Except for the very bottom wage earners who are getting an increase.

$175 to $200 increase for people making less than $20K.

[vi5]

11. To show you how far we've fallen...

In 2010 we're claiming tax cuts as a victory for liberals.

We are all supply siders now, I guess.

[Freethinker65]

12. put the 112B Payroll Tax Hoilday in the "red" column...

where it belongs. It is the start to severely cutting back on social security and its funding (something the "red" side has wanted forever). The tax holiday will be argued, probably successfully by the "red" side, to be made permanent in the next congress. Sorry, but I do not see why I should thank the White House.

[subterranean]

21. I don't like the payroll tax holiday either.

It seemed to come out of nowhere, and is not an efficient stimulus measure. I don't even know who proposed it. Was it Obama? Mitch McConnell? :shrug:

[tomm2thumbs]

33. exactly - that's pure BS to have it in that column - pure BS

[jtuck004]

13. If they had the guts for a real fight they would label that chart with

what is actually being taxed, what people are starting with. The top 20% of income recipients, the ones on the right, have 87% OF ALL PRIVATE WEALTH while the other 80% split the 13% that's left. 87 cents of every dollar on the right, 13 on the left.

That's grossly unfair to start with, and this just perpetuates it. But campaign donations seem to carry more weight
than fairness - with either party. Don't forget the large number of people whose income has been reduced to under $20K single and under $40K married - their taxes go up. And this will be on people for whom a record 40+ million needed food stamps this year.

The chart reflects the kid who won't get a meal until they get back to school on Monday. Your enemy is not some political party,
it's hunger and income inequality.

There is not a damn thing good, or fair, about this tax package.

[Phx_Dem]

14. It's like the Bush tax cuts in reverse. This time, we got alot. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Oh yeah, the child tax credit and equipment expensing were such major concessions by the Republicans

As Rachel pointed out a few days ago protecting the child tax credit is a plank in the GOP Pledge to America. It goes mostly to middle class white people, AKA Republicans.

As for that payroll holiday, it's an attack on the solvency of SS and is resulting in the lowest wage owners paying MORE in taxes next year because they let the Making Work Pay credit go in exchange for that.

This may be the best thing we can get but don't deny it's a pile of shit.

[Nordmadr]

16. Well, you can add the 112 billion for the 'holiday' on to the other side. N/T

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Child tax credit and accelerated depreciation too. eom

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. The SINGLE BIGGEST item (payroll tax) - peddled by GOP enemies of SS for years - is in WRONG COLUMN

It is a poison pill for Social Security.


The "payroll tax holiday" has been a pet project of the most virulent enemies os Social Security for years.


When they failed to get it on its own terms, they now slip it in as a shiny trinket poison pill, claiming it is something the GOP is "willing" to "give up" if their billionaire bailout is passed.


When you shift the SS killing "payroll tax holiday" to the RED column where it belongs, the graph reflects reality.

[avaistheone1]

20. +112,000,000

Very astute observation. :kick:

Obama evidentally thinks most Americans are stupid this is living proof of just that.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. This sales pitch is bullshit.

Basically they put everything that goes to the lower 98% in one column and that which goes to the top 2% in the other, with no consideration about party support for them.

[Dawgs]

22. Payroll tax is on the wrong side. It's what GOP wanted; not Democrats.

It's the beginning of the end to Social Security.

[Mass]

35. You may want to add this other chart, because the one you post only tells half of the story

twice as many money for 25 times more people

[high density]

40. I like this chart the best. NM

[tomm2thumbs]

36. chart needs a makeover

Although I don't think Unemployment should count one-iota as a negotiating 'win'

[ClassWarrior]

48. Thank you.

NGU.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. Awesome! I'm stealing that, thanks. eom

[rufus dog]

39. How is the Payroll Tax Holiday on our side?

for the purpose of this chart that is neutral.

[quaker bill]

51. Because wage earners get the money.

[Hosnon]

46. Move the payroll tax holiday to its appropriate column and then do the math.

Milk must he shooting out of every Republican's nose this weekend.

[jeanpalmer]

47. The 10-year cost of the package

is $857 billion. But your numbers only add up to $352 billion. Where is the remaining $505 billion? I'm guessing your chart only shows the one-year cost of the package. It doesn't show the cost beyond one year of the high income rate cuts, the estate tax cuts, or the tax cuts for businesses. In fact, isn't the estate tax cut permanent, which would put its cost in excess of $220 billion, equaling everything on the left side of your chart?

The things you list as "what we got" (payroll tax deduction and unemployment insurance) last only a year. Everything "they got" lasts two years or indefinitely.

What's there to say -- it came from the WH.

[jeanpalmer]

52. One question

"High income rate cuts" are shown on your chart. Where are the rate cuts for the moderate/low income people -- those making $200,000/$250,000 or less? I don't see them listed at all. Or is their tax cut the payroll tax cut? If their tax cut is the payroll tax cut, that's only for one year. The tax cut for the rich is for two years. So are the moderate/low income people getting shortchanged a year? That type of a screwing over wouldn't show up on the chart because the chart appears to show just the one-year effect of the deal.