It's back.

[evil_gop_liars]

"The Pledge to America,"

 

 

I can't wait.

[dmarc117]

change

[borge007]

change

Ah yes-back to the good old days

[bpwallace49]

Still trying to figure out how extending a tax cut that was shoved through via reconciliantion by the Republicnas that add MASSIVE amounts to the deficit jibes with the Republican message that "we are fiscally conservative".

 

Either you are FOT adding massive amounts to the deficit by extending the tax cuts . . or you are fiscally conservative, you let them lapse and actually try to reduce spending along with it to shrink the deficit.

 

[Azazello1313]

Still trying to figure out how extending a tax cut that was shoved through via reconciliantion by the Republicnas that add MASSIVE amounts to the deficit jibes with the Republican message that "we are fiscally conservative".

 

Either you are FOT adding massive amounts to the deficit by extending the tax cuts . . or you are fiscally conservative, you let them lapse and actually try to reduce spending along with it to shrink the deficit.

 

 

well, you do have a point there, but they are also proposing to roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels (which would save $100 billion per year), no new TARP payments (saving $258 billion), a federal hiring freeze, and a bunch of other vague proposals to cut spending. as you can expect with any campaign spending pledge, they also promise to "ROOT OUT WASTE!" ahh, finally, why did no candidate think of that before?

 

but there ARE some somewhat serious proposals to cut spending in there. I'd like to see a lot more. and rather than proposing to extend the tax cuts forever, I'd rather see a commitment to extend them for 2-4 years, or until the economy starts hitting certain benchmarks indicating a robust recovery. then they all die, at least untilt he deficit picture gets better.

 

it's funny about extending those tax cuts though. if they are so awful, why is it that the democrats want to extend most of them? the CBO says that extending all of the bush tax cuts will result in $3.9 trillion of foregone revenue over the next decade. extending them as the democrats propose (for everyone except the evil rich) will forego $3.2 trillion. that is 82% of the "lost revenue" the democrats want to keep losing.

 

in any case, the spending side is far more important. revenues INCREASED in real, inflation-adjusted dollars during bush's presidency, despite all the tax cuts. even as a percentage of GDP revenue held fairly steady during the bush years. the problem is that spending increased by an unbelievable 104 percent. federal spending spending as a percentage of GDP went from 18% in 2001 to 25% in 2009. and since getting control of congress and now the white house, democrats have just pushed the spending pedal down further. it. must. stop.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Azazello1313

[bpwallace49]

well, you do have a point there, but they are also proposing to roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels (which would save $100 billion per year), no new TARP payments (saving $258 billion), a federal hiring freeze, and a bunch of other vague proposals to cut spending. as you can expect with any campaign spending pledge, they also promise to "ROOT OUT WASTE!" ahh, finally, why did no candidate think of that before?

 

but there ARE some somewhat serious proposals to cut spending in there. I'd like to see a lot more. and rather than proposing to extend the tax cuts forever, I'd rather see a commitment to extend them for 2-4 years, or until the economy starts hitting certain benchmarks indicating a robust recovery. then they all die, at least untilt he deficit picture gets better.

 

it's funny about extending those tax cuts though. if they are so awful, why is it that the democrats want to extend most of them? the CBO says that extending all of the bush tax cuts will result in $3.9 trillion of foregone revenue over the next decade. extending them as the democrats propose (for everyone except the evil rich) will forego $3.2 trillion. that is 82% of the "lost revenue" the democrats want to keep losing.

 

in any case, the spending side is far more important. revenues INCREASED in real, inflation-adjusted dollars during bush's presidency, despite all the tax cuts. even as a percentage of GDP revenue held fairly steady during the bush years. the problem is that spending increased by an unbelievable 104 percent. federal spending spending as a percentage of GDP went from 18% in 2001 to 25% in 2009. and since getting control of congress and now the white house, democrats have just pushed the spending pedal down further. it. must. stop.

 

Az, we both know that the "discretionary freeze" that Obama proposed was largely symbolic, as the three biggest consumers of tax dollars (defense and medicare/medicaid and social security) remain unchanged. There really is only so much you can do there that would actually make a difference. Like trillions in lost tax revenue versus millions in "waste and discretionary savings".

 

I agree with you on a tax cut extension, but not PERMANENT extensions, which is what Boehner is now advocating. That just isnt fiscally prudent. I like a lot of Paul Ryan's Blueprint, but like anything practical in gubmnet, wont pass because they address political "third rails" like SS and medicare/medicaid. The left is just as disingenuous on the tax cuts by pandering to their base and picking and choosing. Either be all in or not at all . . (and to report on something Perchie and I actually AGREE on, a flat tax takes all these political bulldiaper dirt tax issues completely out of play)

 

If the Repubs advocated a limited extension, and actually did what they campaigned on with being fiscally conservative, they would have a LOT more independents supporting them (IMO), becasue they would actually be going down a long-range plan of trying to be financially solvent as a country. It is hard to reconclie the two stances on tax cuts and deficit reduction that is a crucial part of all Republican talking points lately.

 

Either we are serious about the deficit, or we arent. Playing the same damn game sure isnt working, and when you reference the Bush years, how do the increased revenues jibe with increased spending during the same time frame? It wasnt like the Bush admin was banking the increased revenues during the last 8 year cycle, they were spent just as quickly. And giving the Dems more money sure as HELL isnt the answer either, but actually looking at our country from a "30,000 foot view" overall versus a narrow partisan "but can I get re-elected on this" picture is what SHOULD be the goal of both parties.

[evil_gop_liars]

Erik Erickson's take.

[Ursa Majoris]

Isn't it obvious that no tax cut / rise can be "permanent"? No Congress is bound by any previous Congress.

[untateve]

I want more and more tax cuts couple with increased spending. I will vote for whichever party promises to do that.

[TimC]

Thank Zeus...finally something in writing that we can all refer back to if it doesn't work out. Say, what font is that contract written in?

[TimC]

Still trying to figure out how extending a tax cut that was shoved through via reconciliantion by the Republicnas that add MASSIVE amounts to the deficit jibes with the Republican message that "we are fiscally conservative".

 

Either you are FOT adding massive amounts to the deficit by extending the tax cuts . . or you are fiscally conservative, you let them lapse and actually try to reduce spending along with it to shrink the deficit.

 

 

Buzzkill. See that took two whole paragraphs and had no catchy catch-phrase. Maybe you can call it "Common Cents" because the Republicans want to lower the deficit by collecting less revenue and not cutting any spending. It makes cents.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

We're having the wrong argument here. It shouldn't be about extending this cut or that cut. It's time to rewrite the entire tax code.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Buzzkill. See that took two whole paragraphs and had no catchy catch-phrase. Maybe you can call it "Common Cents" because the Republicans want to lower the deficit by collecting less revenue and not cutting any spending. It makes cents.

 

Arthur Laffer would like to send you his newsletter.

[Duchess Jack]

I'd be happy with doing away with government employees pentions (state, local and federal) for all new hires moving forward

Edited September 23, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[bpwallace49]

Buzzkill. See that took two whole paragraphs and had no catchy catch-phrase. Maybe you can call it "Common Cents" because the Republicans want to lower the deficit by collecting less revenue and not cutting any spending. It makes cents.