triangulation

[Azazello1313]

I like this

[Ursa Majoris]

I like this

I don't see how Obama can characterize this as anything other than a defeat. He got one thing out of it - unemployment extension. How this lot will be paid for is anyone's guess. There's a good chance the current Congress won't pass this.

[billay]

Its the height of absurdity.

Edited December 7, 2010 by billay

[Jimmy Neutron]

Hate the estate tax period. Reallly hate that there was no mention of how to pay for what they settled on.... I thought they'd compromise on tax cuts and cut them off at 500,000 or so or so. Pretty weak from the dem perspective, maybe something else down the road was on the table we're not privy to at this point???

[Ursa Majoris]

Apparently the whole $900 billion over two years is to be paid for by adding to the national debt.

 

So neither of them is serious about extricating America from this mess. The cut in SS just brings forward the day of insolvency. This is pure lunacy.

[billay]

Apparently the whole $900 billion over two years is to be paid for by adding to the national debt.

 

So neither of them is serious about extricating America from this mess. The cut in SS just brings forward the day of insolvency. This is pure lunacy.

I wonder what sort of consolation these "temporary" tax cuts will be when they eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and employer provided health care income exclusion.

[TimC]

This is pure lunacy.

 

Welcome to America!

 

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[cre8tiff]

I don't see how Obama can characterize this as anything other than a defeat. He got one thing out of it - unemployment extension. How this lot will be paid for is anyone's guess. There's a good chance the current Congress won't pass this.

 

I hope they don't. It is simply ridiculous the Repugs held the jobless hostage in order to save the poor rich from taking advantage of a tax cut that never should have happened in the first place.

[Azazello1313]

man, you gotta love it. during the election, all the people who carry water for him are all, "he's such a pragmatic moderate, that's what I really love about him." and during the last two years, when he basically handed the keys to nancy pelosi and let her steer the legislative agenda (and the democratic party's electoral hopes) leftward off a cliff, they STILL tried to beat that drum and say the he's a pragmatic moderate, but the party of 'no' just won't play along.

 

now, the moment he shows the first inkling of actually BEING a pragmatic bipartisan moderate, the same people are crying "DEFEAT!!!! LUNACY!!1!! GMOZ!!!!!!11!"

 

Edited December 7, 2010 by Azazello1313

[bushwacked]

man, you gotta love it. during the election, all the people who carry water for him are all, "he's such a pragmatic moderate, that's what I really love about him." and during the last two years, when he basically handed the keys to nancy pelosi and let her steer the legislative agenda (and the democratic party's electoral hopes) leftward off a cliff, they STILL tried to beat that drum and say the he's a pragmatic moderate, but the party of 'no' just won't play along.

 

now, the moment he shows the first inkling of actually BEING a pragmatic bipartisan moderate, the same people are crying "DEFEAT!!!! LUNACY!!1!! GMOZ!!!!!!11!"

 

 

How many people wanted this to happen again? Your definition of a pragamtic moderate is a little wacked there jr. Republican.

[Azazello1313]

How many people wanted this to happen again? Your definition of a pragamtic moderate is a little wacked there jr. Republican.

 

my definition of moderate and bipartisan is something that gains support on both sides of the aisle, while in most cases alienating the fringe of both parties. seems to fit here like a glove.

 

apparently, your definition of pragmatic moderate is something a little closer to nancy pelosi?

[driveby]

This is a political win for Obama. This deal will be a mini-stimulus and will help him in 2012.

 

It's a small win for the repubs since they caved on paying for the unemployment extension.

 

It's also a big kick in the nuts to the rank and file dems.

[bushwacked]

my definition of moderate and bipartisan is something that gains support on both sides of the aisle, while in most cases alienating the fringe of both parties. seems to fit here like a glove.

 

So in your world of moderacy the fringe is 74% of mainstream America?

[redrumjuice]

So in your world of moderacy the fringe is 74% of mainstream America?

 

Whatever meaningless poll you want to parrot is irrelevant. The only poll that matters, is the one from the election. Hussein has failed, the people have spoken. We will do everything we can until 2012 when will take over the senate as well. You can keep your messiah in the white house, I don't give a crap.

 

You can even keep your far left wacko ideologues like pelousy and reid, barney frank and bernie sanders. We'll retake all of middle America and start stripping this monster of a bureaucracy down.

[Ursa Majoris]

man, you gotta love it. during the election, all the people who carry water for him are all, "he's such a pragmatic moderate, that's what I really love about him." and during the last two years, when he basically handed the keys to nancy pelosi and let her steer the legislative agenda (and the democratic party's electoral hopes) leftward off a cliff, they STILL tried to beat that drum and say the he's a pragmatic moderate, but the party of 'no' just won't play along.

 

now, the moment he shows the first inkling of actually BEING a pragmatic bipartisan moderate, the same people are crying "DEFEAT!!!! LUNACY!!1!! GMOZ!!!!!!11!"

 

How can you square this with paying down the debt? Do you seriously think that can be done by spending cuts only? Are you claiming these tax rate extensions will pay for themselves just like the original cuts did(n't)?

[Azazello1313]

How can you square this with paying down the debt? Do you seriously think that can be done by spending cuts only? Are you claiming these tax rate extensions will pay for themselves just like the original cuts did(n't)?

 

well I basically agree with outgoing obama budget director peter orszag. now is a really bad time to raise taxes. send them all back up in 2 years if need be, but don't throw that at an incredibly feeble "recovery" right now. best thing they can do about the deficit right now is come up with a long-term plan (the bowles-simpson thing is a great start) for bending some unsustainable cost curves downward while providing for robust economic growth.

[Ursa Majoris]

well I basically agree with outgoing obama budget director peter orszag. now is a really bad time to raise taxes. send them all back up in 2 years if need be, but don't throw that at an incredibly feeble "recovery" right now. best thing they can do about the deficit right now is come up with a long-term plan (the bowles-simpson thing is a great start) for bending some unsustainable cost curves downward while providing for robust economic growth.

In two years time the same anti-tax arguments will be trotted out once again, especially as it will be yet another election year (we really need to go with every four years to avoid this permanent campaigning that prevents politicians making hard / unpopular decisions).

 

We just added nearly a trillion to the debt - in only two years. Obama's health care reforms will take five times that long to add the same amount yet making health care available to all is a bad thing while tax rate extensions are good. I've seen many righties claim that "we need to take our medicine now" when it comes to letting companies fail but when it comes to personal taxes, it's just fine to kick the can a bit further down the road, perhaps in the hope some miracle will turn up.

 

The whole thing puts me in mind of people on a sinking ship still trying to elbow to the front of the free buffet line.

[gbpfan1231]

In two years time the same anti-tax arguments will be trotted out once again, especially as it will be yet another election year (we really need to go with every four years to avoid this permanent campaigning that prevents politicians making hard / unpopular decisions).

 

We just added nearly a trillion to the debt - in only two years. Obama's health care reforms will take five times that long to add the same amount yet making health care available to all is a bad thing while tax rate extensions are good. I've seen many righties claim that "we need to take our medicine now" when it comes to letting companies fail but when it comes to personal taxes, it's just fine to kick the can a bit further down the road, perhaps in the hope some miracle will turn up.

 

The whole thing puts me in mind of people on a sinking ship still trying to elbow to the front of the free buffet line.

I agree with you about the take our medicine now - I just wonder what would happen if we ended all of the cuts? Would people be able to afford it? What if some people could not - would we jsut end up spending the money we took in to bail them out? What if the economy tanked because of it? Would we just spend the money we just took in to bail them out again?

 

I guess you could have let them all expire and then for the people who could not afford it you could just bail them out with the money from the upper class people who could afford it and in essence you would have been in the same place as extending the lower class cuts and ending the upper class cuts. Weird

[Azazello1313]

Does Preserving the Bush Tax Rates Doom Us to Massive Deficits?

 

In order to balance the budget by 2020, all the feds need to do is cut 3.6 percent of projected budgets in each of the next 10 years. The table below lays out what this means. The short version is trimming about $129 billion from budgets that average $4.1 trillion. Here, we've broken it down by major expenditure categories. CBO estimates the budget in 2016 will be $4.3 trillion; to put us on a path toward balance in 2020, that would call for $128.7 trillion billion in cuts. Spreading those evenly would mean $20.7 billion in defense, $12.9 billion in Medicaid, etc.

 

Note that this exercise isn't utopian from a small-government POV. That is, it gives oodles of money to the government to maintain a status quo that doesn't work particularly well. But what it does do is show the relative ease of balancing the budget over time without raising government revenue. When you hear folks talking about how the "Bush tax cuts" are starving government coffers, remind them of that 60 percent increase in real spending over the past decade and point them to this chart.

[redrumjuice]

In order to balance the budget by 2020, all the feds need to do is cut 3.6 percent of projected budgets in each of the next 10 years.

 

EXACTLY!

[billay]

If this money is so easily paid down then what was all the guff about extending unemployment benefits?

[bushwacked]

Az is all about paying down the deficit, until Republicans get in office and he isn't serious about it anymore.

[bpwallace49]

-sigh-

 

This does bridge the gap, but does so by kicking the can down the road . . . again.

 

The SS cut is particularly stupid, as all it does is make that more insolvent. Extending the tax cuts for all for two years isnt THAT bad an idea . . . but we all know it wont be for just another two years. This is the gordian knot that GWB won political points for, that was NEVER intended to be long-term, but will always be a rallying cry for the freakin politicians. Thanks for the legacy you Penny Laneing moran GWB . . . I guaran-damn-tee that the right will come back in two years saying (we HAVE to fire anyone because the future it just too scaaaaary with our entitlement tax holiday going away! Give it back!) and the merry go round will continue to turn.

 

Back to the subject . . I am glad that the unemploymnet was extended, but I would much rather see some progress towards working with businesses to employ people on a pert-time basis and have the gubmnet subsidize the shortfall rather than just have people sit at home. The "slowdown" method of employmnet like Germany uses is a much better solution for all rather than treating the human capital as disposable, which is what the US does. The extension is another band-aid, and doesnt fix the actual problems inherent in the system.

 

If giving the upper echelons of the wage earners an extension on the tax holiday they have enjoyed for the last ten years is so crucial, can anyone show me where they have "created" all these jobs in the last 10 years with the tax breaks? Is there any proof that this will be used for job creation? Arent companies sitting on record profits right now, without making a dent in the unemploymnet rate, as they still are not hiring? (because of reduced demand) If this will somehow pry loose some of the wealth that the upper % of all wage earners are sitting on and use it to hire people, then I am all for it . . . . but if this is just another example of poorly engaged "trickle down" economics then i fear that this will be another waste.

 

 

Obama has done nothing but compromise with the right, yet the right hasnt changed one whit from its platform. Health care? Ok, lets remove the public option. (Right says= We will hate it no matter what and not compromise) Financial reform? Left says lets get an independent bipartisan committee together that the right originally proposed. (Right says= We now dont want it and will vote against it) Obama says pretty much anything. (Right says= We will always vote against you no matter what) Obama strikes deal to get the unemployed a reprieve. (Right says= Do what we want for the tax cuts for the uber-righ or will will block anything and everything that is presented). Bipartisan to the right means "give us what we want".

 

How bipartisan of the Republicans. They care about one thing and one thing only . . their agenda, and damn what happens to anyone else. How American of them

[driveby]

Obama has done nothing but compromise with the right,

[bpwallace49]

 

Pretty much public record versus hyperbole at this point, with concrete examples of how Obama and the left have compromised from their original intent versus . . . . what again from the right?

 

Can you refute any of the examples I posted with how the left has compromised form its original proposal?

 

Lets start with the public option that was removed . . . g'ahead . . . your turn.