Home > Opinion > Brad Bannon > GOP Wants the Best of Times for the Rich, the Worst for the Poor

GOP Wants the Best of Times for the Rich, the Worst for the Poor

Reader Comments
Back to blog

“By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.”
“But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a "surprise windfall."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/
LOG, you have never heard of Clinton, lawyer obama, barney frank, etc. bad housing sceme that Bush warned about begining first year he was elected.
You learned nothing in election. Breaking 1948 Congresstion & 1924 record of change thoughout Nation....

Bill Hedges of MO 10:49AM December 03, 2010

So Bush's tax cuts have worked so well, that is why we went into a recession under Bush's watch, that is why unemployment is still really high, that is why corporations out sourced American jobs, etc.
Talk about a bunch of hacks. The people commenting on this article wouldn't want the rich to pay their share. Oh no, why? Because they are stupid enough to think that someday they might be rich! What a bunch of losers!
Oh, serfdom is looking good to you guys! Better make room for your parents, in-laws, extended family, because once SS and Medicare is gone, your house will be full or will you be the ones that kick your family to the curb? Let them die in the streets or work themselves to death just like they did during the Gilded Age that you all are pining for.
Shortsightedness will be yours and the country's downfall.

Tree Hugger of CO 10:18AM December 03, 2010

At this point it isn't "Unemployment", it's welfare!
If the "Safety Net" needs work, then let's have that discussion.
This money is LOANED to the states.
What impact do you think that bill will have on an employer's unemployment insurance costs (and business survival) and your state's budget, in the next couple of years?
The argument is about using "Stimulus" money to pay for it or just add it to the debt.
It is interesting hearing Dems talk out of both sides of their mouths ;-)
"Extending the unemployment checks "is" a stimulus to the economy"
" No, we can't use "Stimulus" funding to pay for the benefits!"

Broachman of MI 12:17AM December 03, 2010

but as u well know..this will get killed in the senatE very likely. All the bush tax cuts may still pass in a compromise to extend unemployment..precisely to avoid what I suggested....and that means even more cost cutting.
So either way, you are f, especially with the villain Glenn beck and blofield at Wikileaks...creating havoc by exposing organizations...I think u are in the process of a new world order...thanksprogressivese u can'tthink outside your box can u. Makes u predictable and controllable. You tried to destroy the American economy but you failed. You will instead destroy bloated federal programs and very likely be blamed for an economic collapse. I'm not worried about the long term though. The American economy and innovation is very resilient. The future doesn't need the likes of u twirps around though. you just slow everything down. Solutions to social security wil be found more efficiently through he stars and the free market system. U and ur shady dealings, u will go extinct. It doesn't matter if u are dem or rep, the future belongs to he efficient.

S of AL 9:45PM December 02, 2010

raise taxes on the rich in fact, there would be nothing more funny than seeing that backfire on ur as instead of 5years later like would happen with health care..

So of AL 9:14PM December 02, 2010

you know what is going to be extremely fun due to his 2 trillio and the spending cuts it will entail? Having the dems take away althose programs ...social security,etc...that they so casually promised their base..what will be the excuse? That dems are weak? Haahaha. that's going to be really funny.
take care of yourself

sunofagun of AL 8:58PM December 02, 2010

No I'm for killing the tax cut fo the wealthiest Americans. But for a very different reason. You see this is mostly political footsie. The tax cut extendedthat mattered has already passed...that means 2 trillion in revenue, notthatthe economy could have withstood it. Burble a reasonablchance of survivi is attainable through massive spending cuts. The 2 trillion guar tees this. Hence smaller gov. I don't care if they pass the "rich tax cuts" because it works in heir favor. It will jetted anger their base and for e DEMoCrats in the long run to take away from those...they have so liberally promised to....reps don't have to do a thing. So while u are arguing about theclass warfare act, I'm laughing all the wayto the bank. If the economy sours, it's the dems fault for not passing all the extended tax cuts, if it improves, it's the republican wave that saved the day. But in the end, I could give a rats assabout the 700 billion...if that much after changes in behavior....or economic uncertaint harsh cutting is in order. And. Knothe only thin wore than taking something away from people, promising t world and then don't it.
have a merry christmass. )

Sam of AL 8:50PM December 02, 2010

The same old class divide montra the left has spewed for years , it's getting old .
Who does the create the tax paying jobs in America , the goverment or private industry ?

Hunter of WI 8:45PM December 02, 2010

"Why do Republicans describe the end of the Bush tax cuts as a job killer when companies are already making record profits and not using any of that money to hire more workers anyway?"
Because that WOULD be a job killer. Companies are doing two things with their cash: buying up other companies, and sitting on it. They aren't hiring workers, because the Democrats have not provided leadership or direction. They don't know what to expect; they're scared.
Businesses like STABILITY. Worrying about whether taxes are going to go up, go down, or stay the same; worrying about what the exhorbitant spending by the federal government is going to do... if I had any money left, I'd sit on it, too.
Of course, then hyperinflation due to the reckless printing of money will hit and wipe it out anyway. There's just no "win" in this situation. Well, unless we WANT hyperinflation to pay back China and the SS Trust Fund with cheap dollars.

Rich of CO 6:39PM December 02, 2010

In “Brad Bannon
Obama Should End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Himself” you wrote “Mr. President. Don’t ask the lame duck session of Congress to end "don't ask, don't tell." Just tell Congress that you’ll do it yourself.”.
Showing he could NOT I wrote:
“Brad Bannon study up on your facts. From obama's own words, NO DADT APPEAL by Executive orders...
“OBAMA: First of all, I haven’t “mentioned” that I’m against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I have said very clearly, including in a State of the Union Address, that I am against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and that we’re going to end this policy. That’s point number one. Point number two, the difference between my position right now and Harry Truman’s, is that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which, with the stroke of a pen, I can simply end the policy”
http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/14/obama-says-he-cant-issue-executive-order-ending-dadt/
Brad did respond disagreeing with obama. Saying:
“DADT
The Constitution gives the president the power to override acts of Congress on military matters. Article 2 of the Consitution makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled since the 1940- that the President's auhortity over the military overrides any congressional laws on the military. Brad of DC @ Nov 19, 2010 14:38:52 PM “
In Bad short bio on article it does not say he is a lawyer. Neither am I. obama I know has lawyers as President. Since he wants DADT dropped I believe he knows he can’t change by order because Congress passed that and was signed by a President. Obama could be opening himself up for Impeachment.
My conclusion is Brad is wrong. Brad as author on site should spell check as well.

Bill Hedges of MO 5:53PM December 02, 2010