Obama, Republicans reach deal to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits

[DiveCon]

They're both stimulus bills aimed at job creation. They both add a trillion to the deficit.

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

i'd like to see that as well
but thats highly unlikely till jan, if even then

 

[rightwinger]

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

i'd like to see that as well
but thats highly unlikely till jan, if even then

You know, as well as I, that there will be no spending cuts to compensate for the tax cut or unemployment extension

Just added deficit

 

[DiveCon]

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

i'd like to see that as well
but thats highly unlikely till jan, if even then

You know, as well as I, that there will be no spending cuts to compensate for the tax cut or unemployment extension

Just added deficit

i think you need to re-read my post

 

[MaggieMae]

You didn't ask me, but I do now.

Clearly we still disagree on whether tax increases help the economy. I don't think they do. If tax increases are needed (something I still don't think is true at this tax level), the time to do it is during a recovery not during a stagnation.

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

The issue is that "sacrifice" isn't necessarily needed, won't fix squat until the spending issue is fixed, and raising taxes in a recession or a stagnation is a bad idea. Playing Three Card Monty with the tax code doesn't change the situation, the Simpson-Bowles tax recommendations are still calling for a net tax increase on just about everyone above median income.

And let's also look at tax increases that supposedly reduce the deficit but don't reduce the debt. If we can increase revenue to the government but increase spending also, isn't the tax increase then wasted on more government programs? Mind you, Bush was horrible and Obama is worse but Clinton wasn't exactly a saint on spending either. He "cut" the government and yet year after year the debt total went up. How exactly was that a cut?

(It wasn't)

The Simpson-Bowles recommendations include deep cuts in spending, too. As I said, it's going to take sacrifice by everyone. There's no reason why the American people can't give into their expectations that they deserve everything out there, give in to the demand to constantly keep up with the Joneses. If gasoline goes to $6.00 a gallon, we'll do more carpooling, combine shopping trips, TAKE A BUS, or <gasp> walk a block to the 7-Eleven!! The quasi-rich might have to get rid of that third car!! Oh the horror. The poorer person might have to give up his one car entirely and figure out something else. I might have to reduce my TV package to basic and watch my favorite shows on my computer, which is already 5 years old, by the way. Why do Americans HAVE TO HAVE the latest in IT equipment and toys? I could go on and on, but I think you get my gist.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

You don't "pay" for tax cuts because the money doesn't belong to the government, therefore the government isn't paying anything for them. However, to your overall point, you are correct. If they intend on keeping the current tax rates they need to cut spending and they don't seem to be indicating any intention of doing so.

We'll see what happens when the tea partiers take office and see if they live up to their rhetoric.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Simpson-Bowles recommendations include deep cuts in spending, too. As I said, it's going to take sacrifice by everyone. There's no reason why the American people can't give into their expectations that they deserve everything out there, give in to the demand to constantly keep up with the Joneses. If gasoline goes to $6.00 a gallon, we'll do more carpooling, combine shopping trips, TAKE A BUS, or <gasp> walk a block to the 7-Eleven!! The quasi-rich might have to get rid of that third car!! Oh the horror. The poorer person might have to give up his one car entirely and figure out something else. I might have to reduce my TV package to basic and watch my favorite shows on my computer, which is already 5 years old, by the way. Why do Americans HAVE TO HAVE the latest in IT equipment and toys? I could go on and on, but I think you get my gist.

Well, as I said earlier, I'm not sacrificing anything until I see some major sacrificing from the government first.

 

[asterism]

They're both stimulus bills aimed at job creation. They both add a trillion to the deficit.

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

Revenue to the government will increase when the economy recovers just like it did last time. The idiots in Washington just need to not increase government spending by even more.

 

[asterism]

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

The issue is that "sacrifice" isn't necessarily needed, won't fix squat until the spending issue is fixed, and raising taxes in a recession or a stagnation is a bad idea. Playing Three Card Monty with the tax code doesn't change the situation, the Simpson-Bowles tax recommendations are still calling for a net tax increase on just about everyone above median income.

And let's also look at tax increases that supposedly reduce the deficit but don't reduce the debt. If we can increase revenue to the government but increase spending also, isn't the tax increase then wasted on more government programs? Mind you, Bush was horrible and Obama is worse but Clinton wasn't exactly a saint on spending either. He "cut" the government and yet year after year the debt total went up. How exactly was that a cut?

(It wasn't)

The Simpson-Bowles recommendations include deep cuts in spending, too. As I said, it's going to take sacrifice by everyone. There's no reason why the American people can't give into their expectations that they deserve everything out there, give in to the demand to constantly keep up with the Joneses. If gasoline goes to $6.00 a gallon, we'll do more carpooling, combine shopping trips, TAKE A BUS, or <gasp> walk a block to the 7-Eleven!! The quasi-rich might have to get rid of that third car!! Oh the horror. The poorer person might have to give up his one car entirely and figure out something else. I might have to reduce my TV package to basic and watch my favorite shows on my computer, which is already 5 years old, by the way. Why do Americans HAVE TO HAVE the latest in IT equipment and toys? I could go on and on, but I think you get my gist.

I understand your point, and I agree with the sentiment. I just think there is a more efficient and sustainable way that won't hurt as much. That way would cause the government to lose a major means to control behavior, so it'll be a tough reform.

 

[rightwinger]

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

You don't "pay" for tax cuts because the money doesn't belong to the government, therefore the government isn't paying anything for them. However, to your overall point, you are correct. If they intend on keeping the current tax rates they need to cut spending and they don't seem to be indicating any intention of doing so.

We'll see what happens when the tea partiers take office and see if they live up to their rhetoric.

The US Government runs on a budget..

That budget includes how much money the government expects to take in (taxes) and how much the government expects to spend. If you intend to cut taxes, that budget should identify where you expect to cut spending.

Otherwise you run a deficit

 

[rightwinger]

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

Revenue to the government will increase when the economy recovers just like it did last time. The idiots in Washington just need to not increase government spending by even more.

Voodoo economics

Balance your spending and your tax revenue and then if the economy recovers you have a surplus.

If it doesn't recover....you are fucked

 

[JakeStarkey]

Voodoo Economics, as George H. W. Bush noted, is horse shit. Tax hike liberals are no different than deficit spending conservatives, though the far cons pretend that their type of horse shit does not stink as much as that of the liberals.

Want to cut the deficit? You have to adjust spending. Give $400 billion to the wealthy? Going to have to cut $400 billion in spending.

Guys, the American people are not stupid, just not watchful. However, you will catch their attention with this nonsense and they will vote both partys' incumbents out of office.

 

[MaggieMae]

MoveOn.org commissioned Survey USA to poll over 1,000 people who contributed time or money to Obama in 2008. What the sampling revealed doesn't bode well for Obama or Democrats in general in 2012:

"The poll shows clearly that these contributors are deeply opposed (74%) to a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax breaks for those making over $250,000 a year.

"The depth of opposition to a deal is severe with former Obama contributors saying that they are less likely (57%) to support Democrats who support this deal in 2012.

"A majority of the former Obama contributors surveyed also say that the President's deal also makes them less likely (51%) to contribute to his reelection campaign in 2012.

So 57 percent of Obama contributors say they are less likely to support Congressional Dems for reelection if they back the temporary extension, meaning there could be a political cost for Dems for embracing it.

"And more than half, 51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for Obama's reelection in 2012, suggesting it could damage his ability to turn out the same coalition that elected him in 2008"

Obama Supporters...

A Moveon poll? That's going to be about as accurate in representation as a Rasmussen poll. Here's the Gallup poll, which indicates two-thirds of ALL party persuasions approve of the deal.

Americans Support Two Major Elements of Tax Compromise

Maggie:

I think the point MoveOn wanted to make when it commissioned Survey USA to poll 1000 Obama supporters was that he has risked alienating the base that helped elect him in 2008.

If these 1000 supporters and millions of others who have been sorely disappointed by Obama so far see a viable third party option in 2012, Obama is one and done.

Based on what I've seen so far, I would have to add "good riddance."

Well, the major polls all show that he's not dead yet.

Obama: Job Ratings

Presidential Job Approval Center

 

[MaggieMae]

Liberals best heed the warnings from the Democrat center. (1) You are the tail of the dog, and the dog wags the tail, not the tail the dog. (2) A third party effort by liberals can never elect a president, but it can hurt the Democratic Party. (3) Consider the punishment Harry Truman visited upon the Henry Wallace libs and the Strom Thurmond (Little Saul of the Far Rights', bigrebnc, s hero) cons after the 1948 election. (4) Run a third party candidate, libs, and the Dems will crush you.

The Tea Party people should keep that in mind in case it's leadership is thinking of getting wiggy.

They'll come around. They always do. There was plenty of anger from the liberals when Clinton began moving to the center and especially when he cut the deal with Gingrich on welfare reform, but eventually, everyone was under the same tent and Clinton is now revered. Even in spite of the sexcapades late in his second term, Clinton left office with over 60% approval rating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That horny homey would still be president if it weren't for the two-term amendment.

It's good to see Obama move toward the center, for the far left is no more ideologically correct than the far right.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Simpson-Bowles recommendations include deep cuts in spending, too. As I said, it's going to take sacrifice by everyone. There's no reason why the American people can't give into their expectations that they deserve everything out there, give in to the demand to constantly keep up with the Joneses. If gasoline goes to $6.00 a gallon, we'll do more carpooling, combine shopping trips, TAKE A BUS, or <gasp> walk a block to the 7-Eleven!! The quasi-rich might have to get rid of that third car!! Oh the horror. The poorer person might have to give up his one car entirely and figure out something else. I might have to reduce my TV package to basic and watch my favorite shows on my computer, which is already 5 years old, by the way. Why do Americans HAVE TO HAVE the latest in IT equipment and toys? I could go on and on, but I think you get my gist.

Well, as I said earlier, I'm not sacrificing anything until I see some major sacrificing from the government first.

I have no idea how government belt-tightening would affect consumer spending. I was really just blowing off steam over the fact that, in general, Americans seem to think we're all owed the biggest, brightest, bestest of everything, however we can get it.

 

[MaggieMae]

That horny homey would still be president if it weren't for the two-term amendment.

It's good to see Obama move toward the center, for the far left is no more ideologically correct than the far right.

Ironically, Obama made the point in his final remarks at the press conference that it was time to stop the rhetoric based on right and left ideologies and get to work on solving the problems. I couldn't agree more.

I would dearly love to hear the same type of comment from someone in leadership from the right--someone their troops trust as capable of doing what's best.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hallelujah and Amen.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair

i'd like to see that as well
but thats highly unlikely till jan, if even then

You know, as well as I, that there will be no spending cuts to compensate for the tax cut or unemployment extension

Just added deficit

and who's fault is THAT?...Which party still is in the majority?
Here's what will happen. The GOP will propose cuts, the dems will scream "GOP cuts services while rich get tax cut"...
First, there is NO TAX CUT. This is simply a continuation of current rates.
Second, the democrats will try anything, any parliamentary trick to keep their precious social entitlements.
Third, the Senate now has the Dream Act bill. This is perhaps the second biggest piece of shit (to Obamacare) to come out of this congress. Here's hoping for filibuster.The Bill lacked the caucus votes to get to the floor. Reid has threatened to bring it back again next week. Filibuster on the way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

The issue is that "sacrifice" isn't necessarily needed, won't fix squat until the spending issue is fixed, and raising taxes in a recession or a stagnation is a bad idea. Playing Three Card Monty with the tax code doesn't change the situation, the Simpson-Bowles tax recommendations are still calling for a net tax increase on just about everyone above median income.

And let's also look at tax increases that supposedly reduce the deficit but don't reduce the debt. If we can increase revenue to the government but increase spending also, isn't the tax increase then wasted on more government programs? Mind you, Bush was horrible and Obama is worse but Clinton wasn't exactly a saint on spending either. He "cut" the government and yet year after year the debt total went up. How exactly was that a cut?

(It wasn't)

The Simpson-Bowles recommendations include deep cuts in spending, too. As I said, it's going to take sacrifice by everyone. There's no reason why the American people can't give into their expectations that they deserve everything out there, give in to the demand to constantly keep up with the Joneses. If gasoline goes to $6.00 a gallon, we'll do more carpooling, combine shopping trips, TAKE A BUS, or <gasp> walk a block to the 7-Eleven!! The quasi-rich might have to get rid of that third car!! Oh the horror. The poorer person might have to give up his one car entirely and figure out something else. I might have to reduce my TV package to basic and watch my favorite shows on my computer, which is already 5 years old, by the way. Why do Americans HAVE TO HAVE the latest in IT equipment and toys? I could go on and on, but I think you get my gist.

Ok what makes you think anyone except those on the public dole will have to "sacrifice" anything? Less government spending should NEVER equal a lower standard of living, higher energy costs and a wrecked economy...
Tell me Rod Stewart's girlfriend, how does less government spending leap to $6 gas?
How does less government spending mean people will have to surrender their possessions?
What does your pay tv package have to do with anything?
Why is it you think less government means you will have less?
Look, perhaps a trip back from la la land and cancellation of your subscription to "O" Magazine is in store for you.
Lastly. Who gives a flying **** how old your tv is. If one has earned the money they can buy 12 tv's if they so desire and if they want to put one in their garage and make sure YOU have to see it every time you walk by ,that's tough shit. It's none of your God Damned business how people spend their money.
BTW shit head. I have three vehicles that I paid for....You think I should have to arbitrarily surrender one to make YOU happy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

A Moveon poll? That's going to be about as accurate in representation as a Rasmussen poll. Here's the Gallup poll, which indicates two-thirds of ALL party persuasions approve of the deal.

Americans Support Two Major Elements of Tax Compromise

Maggie:

I think the point MoveOn wanted to make when it commissioned Survey USA to poll 1000 Obama supporters was that he has risked alienating the base that helped elect him in 2008.

If these 1000 supporters and millions of others who have been sorely disappointed by Obama so far see a viable third party option in 2012, Obama is one and done.

Based on what I've seen so far, I would have to add "good riddance."

Well, the major polls all show that he's not dead yet.

Obama: Job Ratings

Presidential Job Approval Center

Oh please. Obama is done. At this point his emperor's new clothes have been stripped away. Obama does anything and everything for purely political reasons
Look at the Bush tax cut extension decision. He sold out the democrats who supported him thru thick and thin. He has infuriated the far left. Why? because the one thing that all current officers want is re-election. Obama knows damned well if he stayed on the course most desired by the far left wing of the democrat party, he was DOOMED in 2012.
Now his most trusted companions in the House have thrown Obama under a bus.
Not only has the democrat party thoroughly fucked themselves for the 2012 elections, they have put Obama's chances in grave danger as well.