If you look at the numbers alone, the tax cut deal looks to have robbed Republicans blind. The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest....I elided 4 paragraphs for humorous effect. The "numbers alone" skew heavily toward the Democrats only because Klein limited the Republican side to "tax cuts for the rich." He also says:
.... Much of what the Obama administration wanted was not that noxious to conservatives. They were tax cuts, many of them for businesses. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels had previously proposed both a payroll tax cut for 2011 and the tax breaks for business investment. Republicans have frequently said that they don't even oppose unemployment insurance.
Conservatives saw the extension of the tax cuts as an important pivot point in American politics -- full stop. As my colleague Jennifer Rubin puts it, Republicans "won the philosophical point (tax hikes impede economic growth)..." The Obama administration didn't see the tax cuts as a philosophical point....Well, that's convenient.
Greg Sargent says:
... Obama's strategy going forward will be to position himself as Washington's lone resident adult in a town full of squabbling children on right and left, and at his presser just now, Obama offered a surprisingly stern, and even angry, rebuke to his liberal critics....This is a good stance to take for 2012. At that point, we'll see how well the tax cuts worked. If the economy improves, Obama can take credit and warn us against giving too much power to Republicans because they will overdo tax cutting for the rich instead of taking the intelligently balanced approach he brokered. If things go badly, he can say the Republicans got some power in 2010 and forced a compromise that demonstrated that their ideology is wrong.
Meanwhile, both Jim DeMint and Mary Landrieu are lambasting the deal. Landrieu says she's "going to argue forcefully for the nonsensicalness and the almost, you know, moral corruptness of" tax cuts for the rich. DeMint says:
"I’m glad the President recognizes that tax increases hurt the economy.... [b]ut ... most of us who ran this election said we were not going to vote for anything that increased the deficit.... I don’t want to second-guess my leadership, but frankly, I think we need to come away with a lot better than this. We cannot increase the deficit, or keep increasing deficit spending.."And I'll just end this patchwork post with Rush Limbaugh....
My take is, taken by itself in its own universe, yeah, okay, pretty good. I like the fact the left hates Obama. I like the fact they're mad at him right now. I like the fact that nobody's taxes are going up. But placed in the context of the shellacking and of this huge election victory, it's not nearly what we coulda gotten....ADDED: My post title is "It's funny the way people are trying to spin the tax deal, now, before the vote." Once the legislation is passed, I assume people will say different things. Extreme claims of victory can't be made now if what you want is to get the legislation passed. And, too, different things will be said about this when 2012 rolls around.
Posts
194 comments:
Klein's "numbers alone" skew heavily toward the Democrats only because he only put "tax cuts for the rich" on the Republican side.
Would could this sentence possibly mean? Only because he only?
Sorry for the double only. Bad writing. Needs another edit. But it makes perfect sense. Rewritten:
The "numbers alone" skew heavily toward the Democrats only because Klein limited the Republican side to "tax cuts for the rich."
Ezra Klein, Journolist member. He'll make shit up whenever he feels necessary.
WV: goact
Ezra is about 95% unqualified to write about economics or fiscal/ tax policy.
Let me get this straight...Is Klein calling Tom Brokaw an idiot?
""It's funny the way people are trying to spin the tax deal, now, before the vote."
Lacking an animating philosophy of state, the Democrats' sole operating principle is more.
It's never enough. Whatever the state is doing or spending, it's never enough, but ever and always shamefully small.
There is no maximum to taxes, spending, or level of gubmint intrusion into your daily lives, because the answer to every problem in life is 'the state shall...', funded by other people's money, those greedy assholes.
So losing this tax fight is just a pause on the inexorable clawing back by our overseers, our feudal lords, of that which rightly belongs to them, now controlled -temporarily- by the ignorant and ungrateful serfs.
They have managed much state usurpation since the New Deal. Klein's message is 'Do not lose hope, our religion will triumph and right soon'.
The Obama administration didn't see the tax cuts as a philosophical point....
Oh really?
gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Ezra Klein is not that bright and easily misled.
No, Ezra is not dumb but he is a true believer in govt re-direction [or mis-redirection?] of income.
Therefore, he is incapable of seeing how the hard-earned 100 pennies in a tax dollar get spent or wasted or lost.
Well, that's how Obama should've spun it, but he chose mumble about hostage-takers instead.
Pretty bad when Ezra Klein has a better sense for the politics of this than the White house does.
It's never enough. Whatever the state is doing or spending, it's never enough, but ever and always shamefully small.@ pogo
I couldn't agree more, in some states the education system spends $20,000 per student, and they are still not producing quality education. What are they spending our tax money on?
As for tax cuts, were there REALLY any cuts, or is this just keeping the status quo?
From one serf to another, if DC was any more extravagant they would be brushing us off with the whole "let them eat cake" line.
I find it both amusing and intellectually interesting that the Dems want to put everything into a zero-sum context.
They cant fathom that the GOP actually thinks these tax cuts are good for the country as a whole rather than a payoff to interest groups.
I guess when your whole party is just a collection of interest groups, pay-offs look like the new normal.
Sounds like Ezra Klein should have been the one speaking at the press conference yesterday.
The Pubbies had Hussein by the short hairs and let go. He admitted being "held hostage." Fine. That means Obama knew his position - a giant tax increase in a deep recession - was untenable. So why not hold him hostage for the rest of the lame duck session right up to the last minute and then FORCE total surrender? The Pubbies are weak, mentally weak even when their position is strong. If they can't stand firm with all the cards what chance that they will repeal Obamacare? None.
So Republicans have been trying to get that payroll tax cut since Feb 09 and suddenly that's a Dem thing?
These guys are officially the Alternate Reality Based community.
Obama's strategy going forward will be to position himself as Washington's lone resident adult in a town full of squabbling children on right and left, and at his presser just now, Obama offered a surprisingly stern, and even angry, rebuke to his liberal critics
Laugh out loud funny.
Obama is an "adult" just as I am the king of Djubuti .
These leftsist really have gone off the rails in the last month.
Obama knows nothing about economics and his statements over the last 72 hours prove that clearly.
"They cant fathom that the GOP actually thinks these tax cuts are good for the country as a whole rather than a payoff to interest groups."
Yeah. That was really striking listening to garage yesterday.
Jay,
You quoted the "old" Obama, the bright shining star bring Hope and Change to America.
This is the newcentrist, pragmatic Obama.
(OJT at its finest)
(NOTE TO REPUBLICANS: If economy is doing well in early 2012 there's a strong likelihood BO will cite this as a reason why AND a high likelihood the public will agree.)
Demint's comments are refreshing to see. Both the EU and the US are dangerously near another debt crisis.
I'd much rather see spending cuts since this bill will be used to justify new spending.
Shitcan the Education Dept and save a Trillion dollars over ten years.
The Dems have no choice but to become Tea Partiers now. What are they gonna do run on their record?
If everyone is outside the gate now with torches and pitchforks, who the hell is on the inside?
Personal income tax cuts do NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE NEW JOB. ... unless you are Rush Limbaugh hiring a new drug runner/housekeeper.
Giving the super rich an extra hundred grand finds 70% of that going into a CD or other investment purchase. Money given to the middle class is "spent". Those are just the facts
Individual tax hikes do not cost jobs. That is idiotic as invidual taxes paid by small businesses are corporate taxes and half of all business pays NO TAX at present.
I am mad at Obama for not standing up to these money changers when he had the chance.
AJ Lynch said...
Shitcan the Education Dept and save a Trillion dollars over ten years."
if you are an example of the product of our schools then perhaps you are right.
So House, when you spend your money, it doesn't employ anyone? Even if you use it to light cigars it employs the cigar vendor. I challenge you to give an example of how you could spend you tax cut without helping the economy.
"Giving the super rich an extra hundred grand finds 70% of that going into a CD or other investment purchase. Money given to the middle class is "spent". Those are just the facts"
Only in FantasyLand are political assertions defined as "facts". But your inability to distibnguish the two tells us why you are on the political left.
Meanwhile, both Jim DeMint and Mary Landrieu are lambasting the deal.
Mary Landrieu voted FOR the Bush tax cuts! What she now calls "nonsensicalness and the almost, you know, moral corruptness".
It seems like an odd 'compromise'. By odd I mean one that was bought for by more borrowing. More money for the unemployed, for the rich, for just about anyone!
Does anyone in DC ask how this is to be paid for? And yet the politicians -- some of them -- seem pleased?
Here's my suggestion: Remove the Dept of Education and DHS. Everyone else: Tell the managers to cut 15% across the top. If they can't do it, fire them, and find someone who will. Govt Managers -- at all levels -- I find, are very happy when they are being chased by people who clamor for them because money springs from their outstretced palm. How 'bout they do some fiscal managing and earn their salaries by making a couple tough decisions?
Giving the super rich an extra hundred grand finds 70% of that going into a CD or other investment purchase.
Uh huh. And when a rich guy invests a million bucks in a CD or mutual fund or something, what do you think happens to that money? Do you think Vanguard just stashes it under a mattress?
The Demos can't get over the fact they could have killed this earlier in the year, but didn't have the guts. Now, The Zero blinked and gave the Republicans what they wanted and the small c communists are throwing a fit.
The Rs got a real reduction in FICA as well as keeping all the Bush tax cuts. How anybody says they lose is pure delusion.
HDHouse said...
AJ Lynch said...
Shitcan the Education Dept and save a Trillion dollars over ten years."
if you are an example of the product of our schools then perhaps you are right
Education was created by Jimmy Carter as a money conduit to the teacher unions. Every year it has existed, the quality of public education in this country has declined (not to mention the fact that every year the teacher unions have been running the public schools, the quality of public education in this country has declined).
If anybody sounds like a product of that environment, it's HD.
He can't do anything but parrot the Lefty line.
Republicans want tax cuts for everyone. If you just give tax cuts to the middle class, and effectively fund it with tax cuts on the rich then all you have done is redistribute wealth from the Rich to the middle class. Maybe this would make sense if the middle class was overtaxed, but they are not. Relative to 1980, for example, the middle class tax burden is far lower today.
The point of the tax cuts for the ruch is to cause the private sector to increase investment - to create assets that increase the wealth of the overall society.
The liberals prefer that the government make the investments - i.e. taking taxes from the investors - the rich. They can accomplish this by redistributing some of the wealth the the middle class to get votes. However, this strategy always fails because the government is bad at investing and creating long term assets which produce wealth. For example, Obama wants to invest rich people's money in "Green" technology which right now is a really risky investment compared to the rich individual who may choose to invest the money in getting more oil out of the ground, which is not a risky investment at the moment.
The government also often makes an investment decision based on current politics or special interests rather than actual benefit. This will almost always produce a worse result and often cause money to be wasted on assets which provide no net wealth to the people, such as building a commuter rail line from Milwaukee to Madison.
Another Mitch Daniels mention. I wonder if there's an Amazon like arrangement. However, Amazon is a great company. You couldn't sell Mitch Daniels if he were Jack Daniels and it was a frat party.
The upper limit on taxes is rarely publicly stated by the Democrats.
In 1941 Roosevelt proposed a 99.5% marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. When an advisor questioned the idea, FDR replied, "Why not?" After the proposal failed, FDR issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at the rate of 100%. However, Congress soon rescinded that executive order.(*)
The idea never died, though.
The goal tax rate under Democrats is 100%. All your base, etc.
@HD House: Giving the super rich an extra hundred grand finds 70% of that going into a CD or other investment purchase. Money given to the middle class is "spent". Those are just the facts"
And thus do we see the utter, the profound, and manifest stupidity of the left on economic matters. Because the concept of investment and its implications for the economy are so right wing!
AS long as the Dem's only rationale for their economic platform is to punish those who have accomplished more than they have, they'll fail. Class warfare, racial animus, gross miseducation, etc. have gotten them this far, but they'll go no further.
Voters are watching the process now, and that genie's not going back in the bottle any time soon.
If a tax cut "gives" money to the rich, then a sale "gives" money to the customer.
It's Christmas time. How in the world are all these businesses going to make any money while they're giving all this money away to shoppers? Ain't it crazy?
Mary Landrieu voted FOR the Bush tax cuts! What she now calls "nonsensicalness and the almost, you know, moral corruptness".
And she's allllllllll yours, baby.
There's this from Ezra Klein:
The (ex-)Journolist member? Please. Next time, save yourself some time and effort and simply ask my labrador puppy, instead. The resulting quote won't necessarily be any smarter, granted... but, at least it'll be an honest one.
Madison Man: I do not think that the concept of not raising taxes has to be "paid for." It would seem that the money you make is yours and the government does not "pay for" it. Instead you work for it. The govt. has the power to make you surrender some or all of it to "pay for" stuff it wants or has to do. But the idea that a non-event (the raising of taxes) has to be paid for is not a good one.
And props to MadisonMan for a healthy plan.
It suggests a limit to spending, which is anathema to the state, but deftly answers 'how is it to be paid for?'
The Left only hates Obama now because he's black. I'm surprised Limbaugh missed this obvious point.
The "paid for" canard in regard to tax cuts is a transparent effort to establish the premise that the money we haven't even busted our asses to earn yet already belongs to the Government.
Whenever you hear the term, typical Lib shitbaggery is sure to follow.
It's NOT a "tax cut", it's a continuation of the current tax rates. What it is, is not a TAX HIKE. Duh. Get a clue.
Wonder when Jay, the Econo-Alchemist will show up and mix us up a witches brew of "giant tax cuts don't add to the deficit!"
Ah, I see Lincoln is filling in.
"Wonder when Jay, the Econo-Alchemist will show up and mix us up a witches brew of "giant tax cuts don't add to the deficit!"
Ah, I see Lincoln is filling in."
I see garage's reading comprehension hasn't improved.
"Spin" is a bit too dismissive -- each is looking at the tax issues through a different lens, measuring it against a different agenda. Klien seems most interested in distributive effects (the who gets what angle); Sargent in the political effects (who does it help in the next election); and DeMint in its fiscal impact (income and assets down, spending and liabilities up).
Daniels (and conservatives generally) put the effects on the real economy at the top of their list when evaluating tax proposals. Because taxes make investment and income-producing activity more expense and less rewarding, lower taxes generally yield more investment and income-producing activity (more growth in the real economy). It's a commonplace for them that consumption-based taxes are more efficient in generating economic growth (investment and income-producing activity). Lefties generally hate consumption-based taxes (even though they constantly raise them at the state level to fund their real priorities like increased pay/benies for state gov't workers) because of the distributive effects.
The "spin" becomes a problem when someone pretends that there is just one way to evaluate the issue. If the objective is to do what is necessary to increase economic growth (that's what Obama said was his principal "job"), then the tax deal was a no-brainer. Yet, even as he said that the deal was good for the national economy because it promotes growth (it will), he made it clear that he agreed to it only because the "hostage takers" were so ruthless. Obama offers the talk of economic growth, but he's not very convincing. Like HD here, his hated of the deal's benefits for high earners is really where he's at, and damn the economic impact.
Giving the super rich an extra hundred grand finds 70% of that going into a CD or other investment purchase. Money given to the middle class is "spent". Those are just the facts
Hysterical.
Yes, they are "facts" that have no data to support them.
You are not that bright and easily misled.
Wonder when Jay, the Econo-Alchemist will show up and mix us up a witches brew of "giant tax cuts don't add to the deficit!"
They don't.
And you can't prove that they do.
Garage: There are no tax cuts. The proposal is NOT TO RAISE TAXES. There is a difference.
I do not think that the concept of not raising taxes has to be "paid for."
I don't mind having taxes raised -- but a leaner government shouldn't need it. But you cannot fix a bloated government by cutting taxes. Cutting taxes doesn't trim the Government -- because no majority wants to cut programs. Cutting taxes without chopping down the size of the Government just leads to an ocean of red ink.
Personal income tax cuts do NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE NEW JOB. ...
No Democratic policy idea PRODUCES A SINGLE NEW JOB!
The Left only hates Obama now because he's black.
"... and him, a LAW PROFESSOR!!!" [::rimshot::]
Wonder when Jay, the Econo-Alchemist will show up and mix us up a witches brew of "giant tax cuts don't add to the deficit!"
I've posted this over & over. Your refusal to acknowledge facts, doesn't make the facts any less true.
2006:
The federal budget deficit will slip to $333 billion this fiscal year, from $412 billion in 2004, as a surge of unanticipated tax receipts pushes the red ink significantly below levels projected just five months ago, White House officials said yesterday.
2006:
An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
Would you like me to post the revenue increases after Clinton signed a Cap Gains tax cut bill in 1997?
Garage: There are no tax cuts. The proposal is NOT TO RAISE TAXES. There is a difference.
It still will add to our debt. Even if these would expire we would *still* be paying for the Bush tax cuts until 2018. Approx another 900 billion.
Sorry, the first link in the above is 2005.
Even if these would expire we would *still* be paying for the Bush tax cuts until 2018. Approx another 900 billion.
Yesterday is was 4 trillion.
You really are a bad parody.
Individual tax hikes do not cost jobs.
How would you know?
If letting tax cuts expire for the upper 1% or even 3% of Americans would keep them from adding jobs, why not offer them equivalent tax credits for every new job they create?
Garage: If your true belief is that the deficit is caused by low taxes would you then agree that the solution is to raise taxes on everyone since the bulk of taxes comes from the middle class? Or are you just in the mood to raise taxes on the rich?
If your business is doing poorly is it helpful to have your wife ask you to make more money? Is it useful to you to be told that your gross revenues are not so hot? Is it not more productive and realistic to manage your expenses better, to cut out those things that you want but can live without?
Teddy Roosevelt had the Square Deal.
Franklin Roosevelt had the New Deal.
Obama has BOHICA.
(Do I have to explain that to anyone?)
It still will add to our debt.
And is continually lumbering its citizenry with increasingly burdensome yokes of mandatory taxation the only way for the U.S. to lower its ongoing debt rate, or does there remain at least one other option...?
FLS: Because it is not possible to calculate the jobs created by a person putting an additional million dollars into a mutual fund which, in turn, invests in companies which hire more people. For those who own a business that is not a bad solution so long as the credit shadows the job's duration.
Individual tax hikes do not cost jobs.
Coming from a supporter of the party that has presided over a jobless rate that has now peaked at 9 percent for 19 months in a row. It’s the longest stretch on record.
You have no credibility, clown.
It still will add to our debt.
Discretionary spending increased 60% in the last seven years.
And you're talking about a 3.6% reduction on income over $250,000.
Guess which is the real issue here?
This off kilter charge and counter charge is all because of acceptance of the false premise that the middleclass spenders end at 200 thousand a year in taxable income. Heck, they barely begin there and run on slightly over a million dollars a year. That segment is who does discretionary spending on new stuff. The over a million guys tend not to spend the extra over a million because there is only so much a human can find to spend money on in this life. The Dems know that. Raising rates on the small group over a million would hardly be worth the effort. It's the 200K to 1M that fund everything including needed stimulus from discretionary spending. Hold this thought and re-read the positions taken in Congress and the Obama Gang.
Let us not forget, Greg Sargent is also a member of Journolist. What a surprise that they both have a piece of this story.
MadMan said: "I don't mind having taxes raised -- but a leaner government shouldn't need it. But you cannot fix a bloated government by cutting taxes. Cutting taxes doesn't trim the Government -- because no majority wants to cut programs. Cutting taxes without chopping down the size of the Government just leads to an ocean of red ink."
Incorrect. As someone else already pointed out, this is not an actual tax cut. There's more than one way to cut gov't. You can overtly say "you're no longer needed", or you can defund certain parts.
It's good to see you on the cutting spending bandwagon, but regarding red ink - we're drifting in a universe of it. An ocean would be welcome at this point.
Ahhh, and it's always fun to watch garage talk about finance or gov't debt structure.
Listening to Lefties pose as if the goal of their perpetual tax plan (More!) is to strengthen our economy is like being in Bizarro World.
For more than a decade they've been telling us that we should NOT be the largest consumer (read: most prosperous nation) in the world. Kinda like they constantly chirp about us not being the "World's Policeman" (read: willing and able to defend ourselves before thousands of Americans are immolated).
And now we're supposed to believe that a weaker, poorer Nation is not what they want? Please.
Funny how when Obama finally does something that makes half good sense so many Dems go crazy. So many are so full of hate and emotional reasoning that they can't be logical for even a moment.
It's also tremendous how Pelosi, etc claim the abandonment of the middle class in favor of the rich. Like they never looked out for themselves first or sacrificed the least for the middle class.
If we're going to have class warfare, let it be between the ruling class and the rest of us.
The Monday morning quarterbacking by DeMint and others is a little tired. This was a great deal. It's so good I hope the Republicans had the decency to kiss Obama and bring him flowers.
Even the two year sunset on the tax cut extension actually works for Republicans, since tax fights in an election year are always a good thing for them.
Yes, we need spending cuts. We need them badly; but planning out 10 years of spending cuts in the waning days of 2010 wasn't in the cards; keeping the economy from being knifed in the back on January 1st was.
Garage: If your true belief is that the deficit is caused by low taxes would you then agree that the solution is to raise taxes on everyone since the bulk of taxes comes from the middle class? Or are you just in the mood to raise taxes on the rich?
I didn't say the deficit is all caused by tax cuts. I would say the left is being a bit dishonest when they always cite the cost of extending just the upper tax bracket. The bulk of it is all the other brackets. Whatever you do with tax rates just have a plan to create some goddamn jobs, because extending these rates isn't going to get that done. I think the payroll tax holiday is a great idea, they should extend the holiday to employers as well. It should create millions of jobs, from the ground up. The right way to do it.
"Kinda like they constantly chirp about us not being the 'World's Policeman'"
I'm idly wondering, did complaints about the US being the world's policeman originate on the left? When did that term enter the language? Someone here must be old enough to tell me. (haha) It seems like that's a concern for some people on the right too.
Whatever you do with tax rates just have a plan to create some goddamn jobs, because extending these rates isn't going to get that done. I think the payroll tax holiday is a great idea, they should extend the holiday to employers as well. It should create millions of jobs, from the ground up. The right way to do it.
garage - you're the biggest idiot I've ever...
Oh, wait, that actually makes some sense. Maybe there is hope.
Gallup poll shows Americans want spending cuts, not stimulus spending
Excerpt: "Overall, Americans choose spending cuts (39%) over class-warfare tax hikes on the wealthy (31%), while almost no one argues for increases in government 'stimulus' spending, which comes in at a lowly 5%. Even among Democrats, Keynesianism is an ex-parrot; only 9% see that as the strategy for economic recovery."
garage mahal said: "I didn't say the deficit is all caused by tax cuts. I would say the left is being a bit dishonest when they always cite the cost of extending just the upper tax bracket. The bulk of it is all the other brackets. Whatever you do with tax rates just have a plan to create some goddamn jobs, because extending these rates isn't going to get that done. I think the payroll tax holiday is a great idea, they should extend the holiday to employers as well. It should create millions of jobs, from the ground up. The right way to do it."
garage, that's the most lucid observation I've ever seen you make. Now all you have to do is understand that spending more money than you take in is what causes deficits, and you'll be on the road to recovery.
Garage: Thank you for acknowledging that the bulk of taxes come from the middle class. I think the tax holiday is a good one. I think that in the present circumstance we should try lots of things that might seem radical to some. It is evident that the Stimulus did not work. TARP appears to have worked. GM and Chrysler are still open questions. Raising taxes would not have worked.
Notable quote from the 1930s re: stimulus spending:
"In his private diary, FDR's very own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, seemed to agree. He wrote: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!""
GArage: One more thing on job creation. The govt. is not good at it. The govt. can, however, set a very powerful engine to work by being supportive of business from both a policy and bully pulpit perspective. Our current leadership has done a poor job on both these fronts for reasons that each can conclude for themselves.
This nonsense proves the so called progressive income tax is a fraud and a failure.
It is time for commonsense taxation, instead of the obfuscatory system we have now and keep recreating.
The government keep reinventing the wheel of insanity.
GMay, my 1003 point was a more general one, not really tied to the present non-extension of the tax un-hike. Or whatever it is. :)
I understand your point.
Funny how when Obama finally does something that makes half good sense so many Dems go crazy.
Bending over and spreading his cheeks for the GOP makes good sense?
Bending over and spreading his cheeks for the GOP makes good sense?
Well, yes, it is.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Even among Democrats, Keynesianism is an ex-parrot
I've been seeing an awful lot of Monty Python references in the professional punditry of late. Regardless of what the tax rates and unemployment rates are, there's absolutely no way we cannot all do better with more NEH! in the discourse.
On a slightly (only slightly) more serious note, all of the teeth-gnashing on the left seems to be a bit vacuous. The president had to make this deal, plain and simple. The political calculus demanded it and, frankly, the gamesmanship the Democratic leadership did earlier in the year guaranteed it was going to happen.
FLS: Obama had no choice. If he did not make a deal then the tax rates for every American would have gone up in three weeks. In January the Republicans would have sent up a new bill. If the Dem. senate and the president kept shooting down lower tax rates then 2012 would look pretty bad for them. As it is there is a chance the economy will recover and Obama will take the credit.
I think the payroll tax holiday is a great idea
The same forces that argue that Social Security is going broke are also arguing to cut off its funding -- you don't see a problem with this?
When insurance companies believe they will be paying out more than they take in, they raise rates, right? Why is it a good thing for the government to do the opposite?
Bending over and spreading his cheeks for the GOP makes good sense?
Actually, it's his Party (the flailing and panicked Democrats) who were calling the shots. He fucked them over by forcing through insane shit like Healthcare, and now they fucked him back by not letting him grab more American's money.
have a plan to create some goddamn jobs,
The government doesn't create jobs.
The government does however, inhibit job creation.
You favor government intervention, which inhibits job creation.
The best "to create some goddamn jobs" would be something you would never support.
the tax rates for every American would have gone up in three weeks. In January the Republicans would have sent up a new bill. If the Dem. senate and the president kept shooting down lower tax rates
In a head to head confrontation, Obama blinked. He's going to use up a lot of Vaseline over the next two years.
fls puzzled: "Bending over and spreading his cheeks for the GOP makes good sense?"
Well, if you equate doing something good for the country to Obama asking for one in the squeakhole, then that looks like a yes.
The same forces that argue that Social Security is going broke are also arguing to cut off its funding -- you don't see a problem with this?
Nobody is arguing to "cut off" social security funding.
Other than your strawman, here is the "plan" as it stands:
The tax cut legislation would provide for a transfer of General Revenues to the Social Security Trust Fund, ensuring no negative impact on Social Security solvency.[...]
So you see, we're borrowing to pay for Social Security benefits.
Isn't that nice?
When insurance companies believe they will be paying out more than they take in, they raise rates, right? Why is it a good thing for the government to do the opposite?
Holy shit, FLS, have you EVER run a business? This is the LAST thing you do because raising rates makes people vote with their dollar and their feet...pointed at your exit.
The FIRST thing you do is CUT COSTS. Why does this escape you?
Holy shit, FLS, have you EVER run a business?
The Democratic party is filled with: academics, students, government workers, and "community organizers"
So no.
Bending over and spreading his cheeks for the GOP [...] In a head to head confrontation, Obama blinked.
"Spreading his cheeks" during "a head-to-head confrontation?" My God... he really IS a Lightworker!!!
fls asked: "The same forces that argue that Social Security is going broke are also arguing to cut off its funding -- you don't see a problem with this?"
"Same forces" = reality
Who is it that's arguing to cut off funding for SS?
"When insurance companies believe they will be paying out more than they take in, they raise rates, right? Why is it a good thing for the government to do the opposite?"
Or the insurance companies can cut expenditures. Theoretically, the gubmint can too.
As has already been pointed out on this thread, it's fascinating to watch the liberal mindset as it can't comprehend concepts like "reverse", "less", or "cut" when it comes to money.
The FIRST thing you do is CUT COSTS.
OK, your claims will now be only processed online, in Western Samoa. Will that make Social Security actuarially sound, in the absence of taking in premiums?
In principle I favor a progressive tax structure and I can't see fixing our long-term deficit issues without taxes "on the table"
Having said that:
-Until the federal government demonstrates a consistent ability to reduce expenditures, I can't support tax increases
-tax simplification makes sense. If we believe that the government can't manage/stimulate the economy then we should stop using the tax code as a way to "stimulate/manage" parts of the economy
-Apropos the discussion of the Lennon death anniversary, the Boomers will need to dramatically reduce their expectations for retirement entitlements (i.e. SS, Medicare, retiree health benefits, military retiree health benefits). We have to leave our kids and grandkids a better legacy, and not leave them holding the bag.
-the problem with a progressive tax structure is the "fairness" argument will ALWAYS push taxes higher for "the other guy"
It's interesting to find out that Scott M and GMay know dick about insurance. dbq can explain it.
The same forces that argue that Social Security is going broke are also arguing to cut off its funding -- you don't see a problem with this?
I see a problem with getting the economy moving. We need jobs. It's outrageous that 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed due to the incompetence of the people who design economic policy.
Come on, FLS. Admit you were wrong and we can get on with our lives.
I see a problem with getting the economy moving. We need jobs. It's outrageous that 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed due to the incompetence of the people who design economic policy.
Garage, based on this intelligent post combined with the last one, I can only conclude that someone has your login.
Why don't you guys define "actuarially sound" for me?
fls,
Good to see you realize that you can't make a coherent argument on this subject.
The only shocker is that you're not going to try do it anyway.
Why didn't our war on terror stimulate the economy? Over a trillion dollars poured into two wars -- didn't some jobs come out of that?
Are you throwing darts at your blogging topic board again?
Stay on topic fls. Focus.
Why didn't our war on terror stimulate the economy? Over a trillion dollars poured into two wars -- didn't some jobs come out of that?
So you're not a believer in Keynesianism after all.
Damn, Scott beat me to it.
Are you throwing darts at your blogging topic board again?
Jobs -- you and garage were both talking about job creation. I guess I should have quoted both of you.
OK, your claims will now be only processed online, in Western Samoa. Will that make Social Security actuarially sound, in the absence of taking in premiums?
Alternatively,
you could lower benefits. That also cuts costs.
It's outrageous that 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed due to the incompetence of the people who design economic policy.
The government doesn't create jobs.
The government does however, inhibit job creation.
You favor government intervention, which inhibits job creation.
The best way "to create some goddamn jobs" would be something you would never support.
"...due to the incompetence of the people who design economic policy."
You really think that there are people who can manage the economy and we just haven't found them, don't you?
That's your mistake.
" former law student said...
Why didn't our war on terror stimulate the economy? Over a trillion dollars poured into two wars -- didn't some jobs come out of that?"
Interesting. I don't remember any Republican claiming this would happen. But according to Democrats it in fact should have had this effect. So FLS is citing a case which shows both Democratic hypocrisy and Republican honesty.
But the interesting point is that he fails to recognize either fact. Some reveals are better than others.
VIDEO: "[O]utgoing Senator Judd Gregg gently schools Andrea Mitchell on the concept of 'paying for' tax cuts. That construct, Gregg explains, assumes that all income belongs to the government, and that there is a cost in allowing people to keep their own money."
For the benefit of those few here who (evidently) need the remedial Econ 101 on this one.
Some reveals are better than others.
I liked the one near the end of Cloverfield, myself.
Alternatively,
you could lower benefits. That also cuts costs.
So the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
As I suspected.
So the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
As I suspected.
Huh?
Why don't you ask Obama, he's on-board.
Further, my grandmother never worked a day in her life (outside the home), and never paid social security. You realize she got benefits, right?
Do you drooling imbeciles even bother to educate yourselfs on the topics you opine on, at all?
So the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
Please tell us dupe how cutting off Warren Buffet's social security benefits would "make things worse" for him?
Please.
I'd love to hear it...
So the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
As opposed to the people in America who aren't forced to pay into the Social Security Ponzi scheme?
Which people are these, again? How can I become one of them, too? I'd love to not have to pay FICA.
You really think that there are people who can manage the economy and we just haven't found them, don't you?
Oh yeah. They just don't work for Obama, or apparently listen either.
I'd love to not have to pay FICA.
Elizabeth Edwards has found a way to avoid FICA.
"So the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
As I suspected."
And there's garage's formulation from yesterday, again. Republicans goal in this is to make things worse for people whom they, for some reason, hate. It has nothing to do with responsibly spending tax revenue. It's done for some sadistic purpose.
"Oh yeah. They just don't work for Obama, or apparently listen either."
All those old Soviet economic planners are out of work. Why not hire some of them? Bet you could get them cheap.
They just don't work for Obama, or apparently listen either."
Well, you're correct about that.
Here is the super-duper smart president yesterday:
It’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions. It means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.
First, he's wrong about Social Security. It wasn't started for widows & orphans.
And Medicare "grew" yipee!!
In just over 2 years this failed affirmative action experiment should be over...
A payroll tax holiday is so Soviet.
Republicans goal in this is to make things worse for people whom they, for some reason, hate. It has nothing to do with responsibly spending tax revenue. It's done for some sadistic purpose.
It is just liberals projecting.
I provided links to DailyKos & HuffPo yesterday and it is beyond dispute they hate "the rich" in this country and want to punish them.
And this is total lunacy, as the "super rich" in this country are almost entirely Democrats!
I do like how the left is all about the promotion of fairness in everything, except of course in taxes. For some reason they have no problem at all with insisting that the smallest demographic of income earners shoulder 80-90% of the tax burden.
Naturally spending is not the problem when to liberals, government spending is as second nature as breathing.
The deal that I would have insisted on is letting the tax cuts expire provided there is a commensurate cut in Federal spending, and yes that includes defense (which I would start with a gradual shut down of our overseas bases, specifically in the ME and Europe).
What I find funny is that people insist on defining "the rich" by... income. Income isn't a measure of wealth. Income is the rate of change in wealth. You can be rich and have no income; you can earn $250,000 a year and not be rich.
And this is total lunacy, as the "super rich" in this country are almost entirely Democrats!
I think the term is cognitive dissonance.
"...and yes that includes defense (which I would start with a gradual shut down of our overseas bases, specifically in the ME and Europe)."
Hell, just reform the purchasing and contracting system and you could save more than 10% without even touching troop pay or overseas bases.
You can be rich and have no income; you can earn $250,000 a year and not be rich.
And yet Biden and Obama never mentioned cost of living as they started drumming up the class warfare rhetoric back on the campaign trail. I've done a couple of searches here and there, but never came up with an instance of them being directly challenged on this facet.
Making $250000 while owning a small business in Omaha is NOT the same as making a $250000 salary and living in Manhattan. Of course I picked those arbitrarily as examples, but you could substitute any low-cost/high-cost comparisons.
$250k ain't $250k and it ain't $250k either.
HenHouse:
Giving the super rich an extra hundred grand finds 70% of that going into a CD or other investment purchase.
Money in a CD or other investments spur job growth because that money gets loaned to businesses and uh invested. How stoopid are you on basic economics?
Weren't the poles in high-tax states floating the idea of different tax rates for different regions of the country?
garage - so let's cut spending. First thing we can do is cut off SocSec and provide the oldsters a cat food stipend.
Why do "tax cuts" always have to be "paid for", but not spending?
Don't be stupid, Alex. Everyone knows that if you let a "rich" person keep $100,000 of his money, all he does is throw it into his big Scrooge McDuck vault and swim around in it.
Ok, I lied. He also takes some of the $100 bills and uses them to light big cigars, which he smokes while laughing at people in bread lines as he is driven past them in his limousine.
Revenant - you are joking, but libs actually believe that nonsense lock, stock and barrel.
What's even more disappointing to me is capitalists who should know better, i.e., Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Jr. are on that "Bash the rich" bandwagon. They give the left cover.
Why don't you ask Obama, he's on-board.
Obama's busy gritting his teeth waiting for the next GOPster to have a turn.
Further, my grandmother never worked a day in her life (outside the home), and never paid social security. You realize she got benefits, right?
So you're saying it's all right to screw people who paid into Social Security their whole lives as long as people who never earned a dollar likewise get screwed? I'm not following your reasoning. Further, is your grandmother still alive? If not, she's beyond the reach of the rapacious GOP.
Alex
Cutting spending and/or taking money out of the economy right now in this economy is the worst thing you could do to it. Sorry, I get off here.
garage - funny the Europeans don't seem to agree with you. They're cutting spending!
Alex beat me to it.
And look how well it working.
garage - yeah let's judge the European austerity by judging the results after 2 whole weeks! They're still an overly socialistic, over-regulated mess. But it's a good start I say....
oh I forgot garage wants to go back to the 1950s Eisenhower era when everything was fair and blacks knew their place.
gm said: "And look how well it working."
That's because they're trying to unfuck what they did, which looks remarkably like what we did - both of which involve spending too much money.
Nice try.
So you're saying it's all right to screw people who paid into Social Security their whole lives as long as people who never earned a dollar likewise get screwed? I'm not following your reasoning.
Because you're not that bright.
Please tell us dupe how cutting off Warren Buffet's social security benefits would "make things worse" for him?
Please.
I'd love to hear it...
Cutting spending and/or taking money out of the economy right now in this economy is the worst thing you could do to it.
Government spending crowds out private capital investments.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Again, the government doesn't create jobs.
The government does however, inhibit job creation.
You favor government intervention, which inhibits job creation.
The best way "to create some goddamn jobs" would be something you would never support.
It's pretty simple.
Obama talks a lot of bullahit but he always seems to go back to following Bush's policies.
Gitmo. Terror trial or military tribunals. The wars. Taxes. Everything really.
I bet W just laughs to himself every day.
Why do "tax cuts" always have to be "paid for", but not spending?
Another excellent point raised by Gregg in the video posted at 11:44 AM, above.
In what I'm certain will come as an immeasurable shock to all gathered here: self-appointed MSM SUUUUUUUUUper GEEEEEEEEENius Andrea Mitchell was, demonstrably, no more capable of understanding (much less responding intelligibly to) that very same point than the diehard Obama acolytes -- dementedly drumming their heels and shrilling non-stop, on this very thread -- have proven to date.
Go figure, huh...?
"So the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
As I suspected."
Could you please point out who is proposing lower social security outlays as a part of this agreement?
Thanks.
He also takes some of the $100 bills and uses them to light big cigars, which he smokes while laughing at people in bread lines as he is driven past them in his limousine.
The left also believes, as evidenced by the comments here, that all the social security recipients are little old ladies that depend on a monthly check for food and medicine.
how cutting off Warren Buffet's social security benefits would "make things worse" for him?
Let's raise the maximum marginal tax rate back to 93%, and we'll be able to recover almost all of Buffet's unneeded social security income.
Could you please point out who is proposing lower social security outlays as a part of this agreement?
Why move the goal posts? Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin are two who want both to cut benefits and to stop collecting contributions for a year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111605032.html
What's even more disappointing to me is capitalists who should know better, i.e., Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Jr. are on that "Bash the rich" bandwagon.
That's because, like I noted earlier, "the rich" is code for "people who EARN lots of money", not "people who HAVE lots of money". Gates and Buffett are so ridiculously wealthy that income no longer has any impact on their lifestyle. At the rate of $1 million per day it would take Bill Gates 150 years just to spend the money he's already got.
FLS: I think that Buffet's entire wealth should be confiscated. First to prove that coming up with such ideas as higher taxes does not protect you from them. Second, because it would be great to get all that dough. We could extend unemployment benefits for months more.
"Cutting spending and/or taking money out of the economy right now in this economy is the worst thing you could do to it."
Laura D'Andrea Tyson, as Clinton's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers famously said during a press conference: "A dollar in tax cuts is a dollar taken out of the economy". Great hilarity ensued. Redfaced, she had to retract the statement the next day.
I think that Buffet's entire wealth should be confiscated.
I'm opposed to property tax.
Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin are two who want both to cut benefits and to stop collecting contributions for a year:
Again, could you please point out who is proposing lower social security outlays as a part of this agreement?
Thanks.
Why move the goal posts?
Huh?
It was you who suggested that part of this agreement was to the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
Do you even follow your own commentary?
FLS: Obama didn't "blink." That would imply he has some negotiating leverage which he does/did not. The Democrats did not pass a budget. Had they troubled to do so they would have had the right to pass whatever they liked via reconciliation. Since they did not trouble to do so, and since during the last two years they did not trouble to raise taxes on the rich or anybody else, they are stuck with what "progressives" once called "reality." Obama saved his skin for a possible rematch in two years. Remember that NOTHING HAS CHANGED, the tax rates remain where they are and have been. He got something and gave up nothing. The Republicans are the ones who flinched by giving up more unemployment benefits. This is likely to insure that the unemployment rate stays high giving Obama the chance to say that keeping taxes lower did no good.
You can only vote "Present" for so long as President.
It took a while but it looks like Obama figured out he had to do things just like W would. Hee.
It took a while but it looks like Obama figured out he had to do things just like W would. Hee.
I think Obama got the better end of the deal. Amazingly.
Sure thing garage. Sure thing.
AhAHAHAHAHAHAA!
At an off-camera briefing this afternoon, National Economic Council director Larry Summers said that a failure to pass the tax cut compromise President Obama negotiated "would significantly increase the risk" of a double-dip recession.
Summers and other White House officials were making the case for the deal, which has proven controversial among Democrats in particular.
OMG, bwwwaaaahahahahahaaha!!!!
Letting all those rich people keep their money instead of being fair and redistributing it is what Barry is all about.
He told us that from day one. Hee.
He got something and gave up nothing.
Absolutely could not disagree more. He lost a mountain of political capital and that's just the low-hanging fruit counterargument. There are serious people talking insurgency primary fight now.
I was one of the "he won, let's wait and see" conservatives that does believe that for ill or good, the president is my President. Nothing this administration has done shows me that they are capable of such Machiavellian thinking on such a grand scale as you seem to suggest.
The President comes away looking especially weaker after his presser, in which he could have taken the high road and beat the compromise drum high and low, but instead paid lip service to compromise while using rhetoric that makes Palin's "reload" comment look like softball.
By the way, now that captain bullshit is "all in" on this tax deal, I can't wait for him to start promising that it will create 4 million jobs, and that he all economists agree it is the best economic policy for the nation.
Olby will then have a stroke...
Check out the blue balls Trooper.
Not those!
These blue balls.
but instead paid lip service to compromise while using rhetoric that makes Palin's "reload" comment look like softball.
Remember all the "Obama temperment" assurances?
How silly do they look now?
Oh man this is great to watch:
Fox has learned that Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) are crafting a letter to share with the House Democratic Caucus that would try to prevent the Speaker from bringing the tax bill to the floor.
They hope to get 60 signatures on their letter (which is still being drafted) and then force a vote in the caucus. DeFazio says he thinks that if a majority of House Democrats are against this compromise, they shouldn't bring it to the floor.
In other words, they are seeking a majority of the majority to move this and a senior House democratic source indicates they don't know if they have a majority of democrats, saying they haven't whipped this yet.
In an interview with Fox, DeFazio criticizes the president and says a majority of the House Democratic Caucus does not support the tax rate compromise. "There does not seem to be a majority of the Democrats who support the deal negotiated by Vice President Biden," DeFazio said. "So we want to have a record vote in the caucus on a resolution that says this resolution should not go to the floor without a majority of Democratic votes."
Couldn't happen to a nicer group!
At an off-camera briefing this afternoon, National Economic Council director Larry Summers said that a failure to pass the tax cut compromise President Obama negotiated "would significantly increase the risk" of a double-dip recession.
"... but... but... but the only sure way to lift a nation's people higher towards economic freedom and contentment is to TAX the holy living shit right out of them! TAX the ungrateful, slope-browed prole bastards mooing and baaing over in Flyover Country straight into government-engineered Prosperity For All, by God and by damn! IT'S ALL THE STATE'S MONEY BY DIVINE RIGHT ANYWAY, GODDAMMIT ALL TO HELL -- !!!"
/DailyKos
garage;
I think Obama got the better end of the deal. Amazingly.
The time for that judgement has not yet arrived.
We'll know better on Nov. 7, 2012
The time for that judgement has not yet arrived.
We'll know better on Nov. 7, 2012
Earlier than that. If President Obama has such low levels of gravitas with his own party that notables were talking a bout primary challenges yesterday and House leaders are talking about fighting the deal today, expect that judgement to come some time next spring when a Democrat or two announces their intention to run.
@Scott M: "Absolutely could not disagree more. He lost a mountain of political capital and that's just the low-hanging fruit counterargument."
You would be right if the election was tomorrow. People forget. His base will settle down. No career Dem will promote a challenge from the left. A challenge from the middle might work but that would come from a supporter of this deal.
If President Obama has such low levels of gravitas with his own party that notables were talking a bout primary challenges yesterday and House leaders are talking about fighting the deal today
Oh, they've already ranted and raved their collective way well and truly past that point, believe me.
VIDEO: Keith Olbermann Compares Obama’s Tax Deal to Nazi Appeasement
Well... you know what they say, after all: "Live by the frothing, demagogic loon... die by the frothing, demagogic loon." ;)
Yea the left has gone off the rails on the deal. Ed Schultz was almost crying because his fee-fees were hurt. But Summers can go fly a fucking kite.
"Yea the left has gone off the rails on the deal."
I'm finding the reaction bizarre.
VIDEO: Keith Olbermann Compares Obama’s Tax Deal to Nazi Appeasement
His spittle-flecked diatribe was certainly epic:
Sir, you have given undeserved tax breaks —and you have carved them a little more deeply into the stone of law – to rich people, living and dead. And you want me to tell them which Democrat proposed the Estate Tax giveaway?
Blanche Lincoln! Blanche Lincoln, repudiated by nearly half the Arkansans in her own party, and then repudiated by 63 percent of the voters in Arkansas. Mr. President, you’re listening to Blanche Lincoln? What? Were Bob Beckel and Pat Caddell unavailable?
We need more Olby as a spokesperson for "progressives"
Summers goes "all in"
If this process were to break down and a bill were not passed,” Summers said, not only would economic projections recently revised upwards not happen, “downward revisions would commence.”
We're all supply siders now!!!
If this process were to break down and a bill were not passed,” Summers said, not only would economic projections recently revised upwards not happen, “downward revisions would commence.”
Five bucks says Paul Krugman ends up dying his hair green... his face clown white... and heading out on a gruesome tri-county murder spree over this, frenziedly shrieking "WHY SO SEEEEEEEERRRRRRIIIIIIOOOUUUSSSSSSS -- ?!?" at the very tip-top of his lungs all the while.
It was you who suggested that part of this agreement was to the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
You were the one who suggested (over several posts) cutting benefits to reduce the cost of Social Security, to lessen its contribution to our swelling deficit.
Do you even follow your own commentary?
Pretty rich coming from you.
Again, could you please point out who is proposing lower social security outlays as a part of this agreement?
I said the same people want both, not that both are part of this agreement. This bill sets Social Security up to be a problem, the next bill will slash it to fix it.
Remember that NOTHING HAS CHANGED, the tax rates remain where they are and have been.
In 2001, before we declared war on terror we may have been able to afford them, but not now. Bring back the Reagan tax rates!
They were good enough for Ronnie,
And so they're good enough for me
If President Obama has such low levels of gravitas with his own party
Obama is a eunuch.
shrieking "WHY SO SEEEEEEEERRRRRRIIIIIIOOOUUUSSSSSSS -- ?!?" at the very tip-top of his lungs all the while.
So...if I get what you're saying, Kent, you believe Krugman once fucked cowboys?
So...if I get what you're saying, Kent, you believe Krugman once fucked cowboys?
Or vice-versa. Took him one hell of a long time to finally learn how to quit 'em, either way.
lol
It just occurred to me that on the very next day after an entire thread discussing "thread winners", nobody has dared make the claim.
Did that thread have a chilling effect. Is there now a chill wind blowing across the blog-sphere? Any other coldish analogies that apply?
Did that thread have a chilling effect. Is there now a chill wind blowing across the blog-sphere? Any other coldish analogies that apply?
I'm just terrified that -- should I transgress against her wishes in this matter -- the Professor will force me to gaze upon Kathy Griffin's hideously corrugated nether regions again.
"... the horror... the horror -- !?!"
/Colonel Kurtz
Perhaps we can avoid the law prof wrath by simply stating "honorable mention" or the more agressive, "wrack 'em" (as some sports broadcaster I never listen to says all the time".
ScottM/
But most decidedly NOT, ala Warner Wolf: "Let's go to the video tape!"
WV: poropt (close enough)
This bill sets Social Security up to be a problem, the next bill will slash it to fix it.
Um, social security is a problem and it was prior to this "agreement"
You were the one who suggested (over several posts) cutting benefits to reduce the cost of Social Security, to lessen its contribution to our swelling deficit.
And?
Notice you didn't answer the question.
Why do you think that is?
Again, you asserted:
the purpose of the payroll tax holiday is to make things worse for those who have been paying into the system for their entire lives.
You have no evidence for said assertion.
Which is why you're pointing out I want to cut social security spending.
former law student said...
Why didn't our war on terror stimulate the economy? Over a trillion dollars poured into two wars -- didn't some jobs come out of that?
I thought it was about the oil? Guess that kills the military industrial complex/no blood for oil theory.
It just occurred to me that on the very next day after an entire thread discussing "thread winners", nobody has dared make the claim.
Gee, I thought Olbermann won the thread
Why didn't our war on terror stimulate the economy?
Because Keynes was wrong.
Post a Comment