Did you notice something else in that article? I did.
^A permanent extension of everyone's tax cuts would cost an estimated $3.7 trillion over the next decade. More than 80% of that cost is attributable to extending the cuts for the middle class, which both parties and President Obama have said they want to do.^
80 percent of the Bush tax cuts go to the middle class? Ain't that interesting?
Ezra Klein puts numbers on it.
^Washington, we've got a price tag: $858 billion. About $450 billion of it is the tax cuts for income under $250,000. The tax cuts for for income over $250,000 and the estate tax cut add in another $125 billion or so. Then there's another few hundred billion in stimulus - stimulus that could, like the Bush tax cuts before it, get extended (notably the payroll tax). As Charles Krauthammer argues in his column today, the price tag here is larger than the original stimulus.^
Well, whaddaya know. The "middle class tax cuts" are a hell of a lot bigger than the "tax cuts for the rich." By a factor of almost four. It's almost like everything the Democrats and their buttmonkeys were telling us for years about "Bush's Tax Cuts Were Only For The Rich" was complete bullshit.
Now me, I think $575 billion left in the private sector, rich or middle class, will do this country a lot more good than if the idiots in Washington spend it on their usual idiocy. So I don't call this a "cost" like everyone else seems to.
Current Events » in reply to Yeah, it's true.
By the way...
The whole thread (55 posts)
- WSJ gets it wrong, jobless benefits CUT unemployment
- Wish I could agree Eri,
- Re: Re: We are about to retire...
- Re: Texas special accounts?
- Your jobless son is another story.
- They put them into Texas special accounts
- Re: We are about to retire...
- We are about to retire...
- I'm with you
- O...M...G...
- Re: Re: Nope.
- Re: Nope. I'm not.
- Nope. I'm not.
- As usual, you're full of it
- Yeah, it's true.
- Horseapples.
- Good post and great points!
