And now what? Life after the tax deal


  1. sad-days says:

    The polls are the most interesting piece here. I’m shocked! Americans actually believe that giving a gigantic tax break to multi-millionaires will actually help the economy? Of course, 70% of our population can’t locate the United States on a world map. So, you know… consider the source. Poll a bunch of people who campaigned for progressive candidates (and who, coincidentally, all know how to read) and I guarantee the statistics of that poll would produce different results.

    It’s just another example of how the American people are led like sheep to slaughter and will believe, without question, what they are told on Fox News. Huh. What a bunch of idiots we are. How can we have any pride in ourselves? One of George W. Bush’s great presidential statements was, “One of the hardest parts of my jobs is to conect Iraq to the war on terror.” But you have to give him and his cronies credit. They did it. They had all the idiots jumping at the bit to kill innocent people. But I digress. The point is this: stupid people keep breeding.

    So, what now? How about more birth control commercials on Fox News?

    As usual, great piece, Nick!

  2. stever says:

    Not so amazingly, when the majority of Americans agree about certain things they are just being duped but when the majority agrees about something else, they are enlightened and inspired.

    Thankfully we can count on the media to give us the real story.

  3. Dr. J says:

    There are so many things wrong with this, it is hard to tell where to start. However, I find it amazing anyone can justify the government bureaucrats and politicians taking our tax money and spending it on pork and other payoffs to their Democratic Party special interests and calling that a “stimulus” (which did not work very well at all, look at where we are), while attacking lower tax rates, which put money directly into ALL people’s pockets to spend immediately (just like unemployment compensation), and calling that a giveaway to the rich. Again, even money that is invested or saved does not disappear from the economy, that is how economies grow. Consumptive spending is lke a sugar high, it is not sustainable.

    As for Dr. Erickson’s opinions, it seems the majority of Congress and the American people (in numerous recent polls) have rejected that soundly as shown in the Obama Tax Rate Extension bill just passed. But he can continue to pursue making the tax codes much more progressive than they already are if he likes, good luck on that one. The problem we have is government spending, not tax revenues. Tax revenues will go up due to this excellent bill, just wait and see, but how about spending? That is where progress needs to be made now on the deficit and debt. Is the only issue maximizing the government’s return? I think not. The issue of lower taxes and a government that lives within its’ means is what all should be concerned about. Governments that use taxes and regulations to punish success and reward failure will get more failure and less success, that has been proven time and time again.

    I would also argue a 2 year extension of existing tax rates if far from “providing certainty” in the business world. It’s just another political game and fight that will continue for the next two years, with a very uncertain outcome. That, along with the continuing onerous regulations in states and federal agencies hardly changes anything, wrt certainty, for the business world and their views of expanding their businesses, when cycle times from investment to returns is commonly more than two years.

    As for class warfare, one of the main arguments (ignoring the fiscal issues which were a red herring thrown in by hypocritical Democrats seeking cover) against the Obama bill was that it somehow wasn’t “fair”. When about $100 billion of direct benefits went to “the rich” and only $400 billion went to “the poor and middle class”, that was deemed “unfair”. OK, let me ask what is “fair” and who decides and on what basis? Is it a per capita quota as Pelosi claims? Then what is the quota allowed? When Obama was asked during the campaign why he wanted to raise capital gains taxes on the rich, when all experience has shown lowering them produces more government revenue, he said it was a question of “fairness”. OK, so how does the definition of that one go? Would taxing the rich at 50% do it? How about 75%? 100%? What economics is that based on? Would Dr. Erickson agree on what would be fair?

    There is a story about Michael Harrington, a socialist activist who worked for the George McGovern in 1972. He went around campaigning for George’s idea that any income or estate over $500,000 be taxed at 100%. When he proposed this to a group of mostly African American and Latina garment workers in NYC, the women became outraged that the government would confiscate huge chunks of earnings that they could see passed down to their family if they or their children were ever to be successful enough to earn that. Even when he tried to convince the workers they could never be that successful (or their children), the workers rejected it and said they had dreams and they didn’t want to be punished and singled out for retribution because they were successful. I think that says it all, but if you would like to believe the American dream is dead, fine, most people would disagree with you, it still happens everyday.