got credit for his tax cuts.
President Obama merly extended the Bush tax cuts as part of compromise so taxes would not be raised on the middleclass and President Obama gets credit for extending them as part of that compromise.
The BUsh tax cuts will always be called the Bush tax cuts
because President Bush first introduced them and got them passed.
And the moment he extended them, and took credit for them, they became the Obama Tax Cuts. Surely that is self explanatory.President Obama merly extended the Bush tax cuts as part of compromise so taxes would not be raised on the middleclass and President Obama gets credit for extending them as part of that compromise.
And Obama supported, endorsed and took credit for continuing those same cuts. It seems that the Bush Cuts are often used as an excuse to fault Bush rather than to praise him, wouldn't you agree?The BUsh tax cuts will always be called the Bush tax cuts because President Bush first introduced them and got them passed.
According to the following article allowing the disparity [between the rich and the middleclass]" to continue is both bad economic policy and bad social policy."
In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.
Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation.
The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.
This new data, derived by the French economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez from American tax returns, also suggests that those at the top were more likely to earn than inherit their riches. That’s not completely surprising: the rapid growth of new American industries — from technology to financial services — has increased the need for highly educated and skilled workers. At the same time, old industries like manufacturing are employing fewer blue-collar workers.
The only way to redress the income imbalance is by implementing policies that are oriented toward reversing the forces that caused it. That means letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy and adding money to some of the programs that House Republicans seek to cut. Allowing this disparity to continue is both bad economic policy and bad social policy. We owe those at the bottom a fairer shot at moving up.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
Exactly right, as Henry Ford found in the past, many of the super smart rich folks today like Warren Buffett and the other millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates of the wealthy understood, its bad for the long term economy to have so little wealth in the consumer class that it hurts consumer demand.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
THe article was stating that the reason why there is a disparity [between the rich and the middleclass]" is because of the Bush tax cuts.
That means letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy and adding money to some of the programs that House Republicans seek to cut.