Obama: let Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest expire.

[Le Socialiste]

More 'election-season compassion' from the Obama camp (if one can call it that):


Sounding every bit like the candidate he is, President Barack Obama called Monday for a one-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts on annual income up to $250,000, while letting those that chiefly benefit the very wealthy expire on schedule at year's end. The proposal reignited an election-year fight designed to polish his credentials as a champion for middle-class Americans.

"It's time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, folks like myself, to expire," he said in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by people he warned could see a $2,200 jump in their tax bill if the rates expire. "I'm not proposing anything radical here," he insisted, casting the move as a return to the tax rates in force under President Bill Clinton, who presided over an era of robust job growth.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-let-bush-era-tax-cuts-wealthiest-expire-172849154.html

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

Absolutely nothing surprising here, just more election-year gimmicks.
:rolleyes:

[Klaatu]

Statistics show that the highest rates of economic growth in the U.S. occurred when tax rates were the highest, in the post-WWII years (1945-1973) This was also a time when unions were strongest.

This is hard evidence that income equality leads to a fair, classless, and prosperous society.

[Le Socialiste]

Absolutely nothing suppressing here, just more election-year gimmicks.
:rolleyes:

I'm aware of that.

[Prinskaj]

Statistics show that the highest rates of economic growth in the U.S. occurred when tax rates were the highest, in the post-WWII years (1945-1973) This was also a time when unions were strongest.

This is hard evidence that income equality leads to a fair, classless, and prosperous society.
So Growth = Communism? Cool story bro.
Whether there is growth or not is irrelevant, it is still capitalism, and must therefore be opposed.
Secondly, income equality doesn't equate to anything in matters of politics. Where I live, Denmark, income equality is very high, yet the state is increasingly following the neoliberalist doctrine of privatization, cutting programs for the working class and lowering taxes for the wealthy.

[ed miliband]

Statistics show that the highest rates of economic growth in the U.S. occurred when tax rates were the highest, in the post-WWII years (1945-1973) This was also a time when unions were strongest.

This is hard evidence that income equality leads to a fair, classless, and prosperous society.

restriction plz.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Statistics show that the highest rates of economic growth in the U.S. occurred when tax rates were the highest, in the post-WWII years (1945-1973) This was also a time when unions were strongest.

This is hard evidence that income equality leads to a fair, classless, and prosperous society.

1. There's nothing 'fair' about a massive, over-powering, somewhat omni-potent state. Nor classless. Nor prosperous, in the long run.

2. Keynesianism was a failure, the post-WW2 years show some evidence that welfare and re-distribution have some effect on 'prosperity for all', but a) this effect is quite limited, b) erodes itself in the long term because classical, old-school Keynesianism is essentially based on the Phillips Curve which has been proved as bunk, and c) Keynesianism does NOTHING to move towards a classless society as you say. If anything, it entrenches class relations because it is an excuse for the state to become even more burdensome and expansive.

[KurtFF8]

It's interesting how headlines can shape perspectives. This was the Guardian's headline:


Barack Obama calls on Congress to extend Bush tax cuts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/09/barack-obama-congress-tax-cuts)


President wants extension of cuts for people making less than $250,000 as he attempts to present contrast with Mitt Romney

[Teacher]

Capitalism boomed in the postwar era because of the massive destruction of capital that occurred during the Great Depression and WWII. The idea that capitalism can be "fixed" by a redistribution of income is just wrong. The problem is with capitalism itself, not the distribution of income.

If capitalism could enter another Golden Age by raising taxes and redistributing income then why don't capitalists do it?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So Growth = Communism? Cool story bro.
Whether there is growth or not is irrelevant, it is still capitalism, and must therefore be opposed.
Secondly, income equality doesn't equate to anything in matters of politics. Where I live, Denmark, income equality is very high, yet the state is increasingly following the neoliberalist doctrine of privatization, cutting programs for the working class and lowering taxes for the wealthy.
Oh, I thought he was joking. The idea that the US was closer to socialism under LBJ in the 60s is only rather insane.

This obviously proves that Obama is actually a socialist -- most likely a of a kind of Guevarist, Trotskyist, Reverend Wrightist, Jingoist, Imperialist nature:lol:.

[Klaatu]

restriction plz.

For What? I was just stating a historical fact: incomes rose when taxes were higher. This is something that has happened, past-tense.

This does not mean that I support the entrenched system! It should have been obvious as I explicitly stated the terms "income equality,"
and "classless society," which are Socialist ideals! (go back and reread my post)



Whether there is growth or not is irrelevant,
You are wrong here... growth is relevant



it is still capitalism, and must therefore be opposed.

Agreed.


1. There's nothing 'fair' about a massive, over-powering, somewhat omni-potent state. Nor classless. Nor prosperous, in the long run.

2. Keynesianism was a failure, the post-WW2 years show some evidence that welfare and re-distribution have some effect on 'prosperity for all', but a) this effect is quite limited, b) erodes itself in the long term because classical, old-school Keynesianism is essentially based on the Phillips Curve which has been proved as bunk, and c) Keynesianism does NOTHING to move towards a classless society as you say. If anything, it entrenches class relations because it is an excuse for the state to become even more burdensome and expansive.

I did not mention Keynesism, nor did I say I supported an omnipotent state.

[Robocommie]

Statistics show that the highest rates of economic growth in the U.S. occurred when tax rates were the highest, in the post-WWII years (1945-1973) This was also a time when unions were strongest.

This is hard evidence that income equality leads to a fair, classless, and prosperous society.

Not necessarily, because correlation does not equal causation.

High US economic growth in that period was probably primarily due to the fact that WWII had annihilated the industrial base of nearly every major European country in the world and left the US with a lot of room to grow and a new military-industrial complex to feed.

[Klaatu]

When I say income equality, I am not thinking of the liberal sense of it, as that would still be a class society

Income equality is meant as it is, face-value, "equality-of-incomes."

Whew... Some people sure took that the wrong way :blink:

[Klaatu]

Not necessarily, because correlation does not equal causation.

High US economic growth in that period was probably primarily due to the fact that WWII had annihilated the industrial base of nearly every major European country in the world and left the US with a lot of room to grow and a new military-industrial complex to feed.


If anything, that high growth proves one thing: when people get together and work hard, the result is a good prosperity for all. Yes this result is independent of the type of economic system. In other words, a Socialist system is every bit as efficient as any Capitalist system might be. Possibly even more efficient, in that we do not have a rich class sucking wealth from the worker, nor do we have lack of opportunity as exists under Capitalism. I have stated before that Capitalism actually creates unemployment. That is why unemployment exists. This is why income inequality exists.

Wealthy liberal Capitalists have created the present wealth-redistribution system, in order to justify their class position, and draw attention away from their great hoarding of wealth. That is why I do not like liberals either. Their methods are not the solution to income equality.

[jookyle]

See guys, he really is a communist :laugh:

[Klaatu]

Gotta love the way people jump to conclusions around here. It's as if a pack of hungry wolves
lay in wait for someone to say something they consider "impure," and then they pounce! :rolleyes:

[Lynx]

Capitalism boomed in the postwar era because of the massive destruction of capital that occurred during the Great Depression and WWII. The idea that capitalism can be "fixed" by a redistribution of income is just wrong. The problem is with capitalism itself, not the distribution of income.

If capitalism could enter another Golden Age by raising taxes and redistributing income then why don't capitalists do it?
Because there is no political pressure to do it, unlike the years following the Great Depression.

[Klaatu]

Because there is no political pressure to do it, unlike the years following the Great Depression.
Also, we have been brought up to believe that Capitalism is the "best" system, yada-yada-yada. It was drilled into our heads, like they do with
religious indoctrination. Not only that, we were brain-washed that "communism is evil" and even God is against it (how could they even know that?)

Therefore most Americans are not only terrified of Socialism, they mock it at every turn, as though being a Socialist is equivalent to being a child molester or something :lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Klaatu, you have overlooked a massive problem which is really present day-specific.

Growth is not 'necessary' as such in the developed economies, since they are nearly all post-industrial. They can continue to go along at 1-3% average growth over the next century and they'll do more than fine.

Moreover, growth has been shown to be terribly unfair to the poor in developing countries, under Capitalism. China, India are the two best examples, but if you look at Latin America and sub-saharan Africa there are great examples there too. Unfortunately, growth leads to greater value in the economy which encourages war, land-grabbing and general conflict within the country/population.

[Klaatu]

Growth is not 'necessary' as such in the developed economies, since they are nearly all post-industrial. They can continue to go along at 1-3% average growth over the next century and they'll do more than fine.

You are forgetting something here. When I say "growth" I am referring to the growth of economic
activity which must (at least) match the growth in population. For example, if population grows
by 5% per year, so must economic activity grow at 5% per year. That is, additional persons
must eat, have clothing, shelter, transport, etc. This growth represents the peoples' needs.
(Not to mention their wants.) This has nothing to do with Capitalism, per se.



Moreover, growth has been shown to be terribly unfair to the poor in developing countries, under Capitalism. China, India are the two best examples, but if you look at Latin America and sub-saharan Africa there are great examples there too. Unfortunately, growth leads to greater value in the economy which encourages war, land-grabbing and general conflict within the country/population.

True that.

But you cannot entirely blame "growth" for those problems. This has more to do with an "I've got mine" attitude.
Such is the leading premise of Capitalism. The Western ideals of greed and imperialism are what must change.
The West has got to stop thinking that we are always right.

[Lucretia]

More 'election-season compassion' from the Obama camp (if one can call it that):



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-let-bush-era-tax-cuts-wealthiest-expire-172849154.html

Where have I heard O say this before? Oh, that's right! The *last time he was campaigning*!!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are forgetting something here. When I say "growth" I am referring to the growth of economic
activity which must (at least) match the growth in population. For example, if population grows
by 5% per year, so must economic activity grow at 5% per year. That is, additional persons
must eat, have clothing, shelter, transport, etc. This growth represents the peoples' needs.
(Not to mention their wants.) This has nothing to do with Capitalism, per se.



True that.

But you cannot entirely blame "growth" for those problems. This has more to do with an "I've got mine" attitude.
Such is the leading premise of Capitalism. The Western ideals of greed and imperialism are what must change.
The West has got to stop thinking that we are always right.

Given the amount by which current living standards exceed subsistence living standards, growth does not really come into the equation, and neither does population. Only a Malthusian outlook really deems growth as a relation of population as a necessary factor in the economic equation.

For the Capitalists, they want to maximise profit, irrespective of growth, as a great deal of profit can be made in times of volatility when growth is low, and irrespective of population, as technology/machinery means that human capital is of less importance now than it was 100 or 200 years ago.

I'm not meaning to come across as 'blaming' growth. Growth, in some form, is obviously necessary for economic success, but my point is that it is not sufficient, nor is it the main concern of either the ruling class (who seek capital) or the working class (who seek to survive, but in their own best interests when they're politically conscious seek political and economic power, and social equality).

You should also note that greed and imperialism are NOT western phenomena. Russia and China too are great imperialist nations, and greed purveys the entire Capitalist world; it is global.