« Twitter roundup | Main | Twitter roundup »

April 29, 2010


I'm looking forward in the future, when the Administration takes fulsome credit for increased revenues resulting from the discontinuation of the Bush-era tax cuts for the higher brackets, to Brendan taking them to task, saying that revenue increase resulted from the provisions of current law, not any legislation endorsed by Obama. I'll also be watching for flying pigs.

Here's a trick question:

President Obama pushes Rush Limbaugh off the top of the Empire State Building. Did the President murder Rush Limbaugh?

Answer: No, not if Limbaugh is still in the air on the way down. It isn't murder until Limbaugh hits the pavement. *

IMHO the enormous spending increases passed by the President and Democratic Congress make broad-based tax increases just about as certain as Limbaugh going splat on the pavement. It's only a matter of when the new taxes actually hit.

*This gimmick was actually used in a Perry Mason mystery. Party A gave the victim poison that would inevitably kill the victim, but Party B shot the victim before the poison took effect. Party A was therefore not guilty of murder.

Re: Brendan's Update: Maybe Obama should also get credit for reducing the amount of income tax paid by the millions who are now unemployed due to his economic policy. :)

This is supremely silly.

Has Obama's specifially raised taxes? No. Has he supported progrmas that will neccesitate huge tax increases - dwarfing the somewhat minor tax decreases of 2010/2011? ......

Perhaps respondents are looking at the long -term effects of recent legislation and answering in a way that is technically (for the moment) wrong, but completely rational.

"It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven't calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don't know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that's what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn't been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993.

Whatever the future of the Tea Party movement in American politics, it's a bad idea for so many participants to operate on the basis of false notions about the burden of federal taxation. It only takes a little bit of time to look at one's tax return to see what one is actually paying the Treasury, calculate the percentage of one's income that goes to taxes, and compare it with what was paid last year and the year before. People may then discover that their anger is misplaced and channel it into areas where it is more likely to bring about positive change."

- Bruce Bartlett in an article titled The Misinformed Tea Party Movement

"Maybe Obama should also get credit for reducing the amount of income tax paid by the millions who are now unemployed due to his economic policy. :)"

You've moved on from misrepresentations to complete fabrications, David. Well done. Fox News will be calling soon.

Clinton raised taxes in order to convince bondholders that he was serious about having balanced budgets. Coincidentally or not, while Clinton was president the nation enjoyed some of its strongest growth since the Truman era.

The "tax cuts fix everything" crowd doesn't understand that across the board tax cuts correlate 100% positively to larger deficits, which worries bondholders and results in higher interest rates and diminished availability of credit--which is bad for economic growth.

The comments to this entry are closed.