[andyt]

Pseudonym wrote:

andyt wrote:

Both Democrats and Republicans before and after Clinton were all in favor of running deficits, as have been the govts of all other western nations for years. Reagan really got into it with his tax cuts, which just made it all the harder to balance the books, but Republicans haven't reduced spending when in office, and Democrats are too chicken to raise taxes. Bill Clinton is the only guy who seemed to manage both.

That is one of the things that makes me hopeful about the upcoming Congress - it will be a similar situation with a Democrat in power and a Republican House, if not a Republican Senate. We could get the survivable tax rates with the spending reductions. Of course, with our luck, we'll probably get the increased taxes and increased spending, but one can dream.

What y'all need are the tax increases along with spending reductions. If you'd copied our single payer system of health care, the savings would fund your military expenditures right there. If you'd stop getting involved in useless wars for a bit, that would help too.

[thealmightynarf]

I'm just ecstatic that the two sides are at least talking to each other for the first time since I've personally started paying attention to US politics. Sure, neither side is happy with what the bill is, but that's the nature of comprise. The left and right have radically different views on what they want the country to be, so compromise will always leave both sides a tad unhappy.

Sure, this bill may end up doing more harm than good in-and-of itself. But, I figure a bad comprise has at least the possibility of leading to healthy bipartisanship... stubborn partisanship just leads to more stubborn partisanship no matter how much either side may think they're in the right.

A good, if somewhat shaky, first step, I hope.

[andyt]

thealmightynarf wrote:

I'm just ecstatic that the two sides are at least talking to each other for the first time since I've personally started paying attention to US politics. Sure, neither side is happy with what the bill is, but that's the nature of comprise. The left and right have radically different views on what they want the country to be, so compromise will always leave both sides a tad unhappy.

Sure, this bill may end up doing more harm than good in-and-of itself. But, I figure a bad comprise has at least the possibility of leading to healthy bipartisanship... stubborn partisanship just leads to more stubborn partisanship no matter how much either side may think they're in the right.

A good, if somewhat shaky, first step, I hope.

Keep that hope alive, even if it is delusional. Wait til the new congress is sworn in before you get your hopes up too high.

[thealmightynarf]

andyt wrote:

thealmightynarf wrote:

I'm just ecstatic that the two sides are at least talking to each other for the first time since I've personally started paying attention to US politics. Sure, neither side is happy with what the bill is, but that's the nature of comprise. The left and right have radically different views on what they want the country to be, so compromise will always leave both sides a tad unhappy.

Sure, this bill may end up doing more harm than good in-and-of itself. But, I figure a bad comprise has at least the possibility of leading to healthy bipartisanship... stubborn partisanship just leads to more stubborn partisanship no matter how much either side may think they're in the right.

A good, if somewhat shaky, first step, I hope.

Keep that hope alive, even if it is delusional. Wait til the new congress is sworn in before you get your hopes up too high.

Perhaps. But, I think both sides are starting to realize none of them have much ideological support from the people right now. Republicans didn't take the House because of a swing tword conservatism in the voter base... they took the House because the Democrats weren't getting the shit done that people wanted them to. And, thankfully, Republicans seem to know this (http://tinyurl.com/2w7gaea). If they don't start playing nice, they can and will get kicked out again.

[Teikiatsu]

andyt wrote:

What y'all need are the tax increases along with spending reductions.

On that we can agree. Tax cut without spending cuts don't help. But these aren't tax cuts we're talking avout. This is an extension of existing tax rates that have been in effect since 2001. There are no tax cuts, though everyone seemes to be willing to say there are.

However...

Quote:

If you'd copied our single payer system of health care, the savings would fund...

I lol'd

If we go single payer, we won't be able to go to Canada for better and more effective health care and then both our nations will be screwed. I'll keep my health care as-is, thanks. (If the GOP will repeal/defund that is.)

[Teikiatsu]

Original post:

1) an extension of the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that enshrine sweeping breaks for America's wealthiest two percent.
2) It was an extremist game of political chicken in which the Democrats blinked first. Rather than allow middle class taxes to go up, Obama conceded to an across-the-board lowering, including the cut for the wealthy.
3) The entire package of tax cuts is estimated to cost the federal government around $900 billion dollars,
4) the strategy is thus a fairly incoherent one. Like it or not, taxes are simply the financial lifeblood of government.
5) Trying to dig yourself out of a deficit without using them is a bit like trying to turn around a failing business without profits.
6) Or, from another perspective, one could make the case that in the present uncertain economic climate, the "conservative" position — to use the traditional, cautious, skeptical definition of the term — should be to oppose any radical dicking around with the code, period, and simply stick with the minimum rates needed to keep the status quo humming along.
7) In any case, the amount of Democratic pushback to the President's compromise (or sell-out)
8 ) The whole episode has been described as the most intense moment of liberal disillusionment with Obama to date,


Now for opposing points:

1a) If you are extending tax cuts they are no longer tax cuts. They are existing tax rates
1b) These tax rates lowered EVERY American's taxes, not just the people who create jobs
2) Working 70-100 hours a week to manage an LLC that earns $250-500K a year then spending $50-200K annually on labor and another $100-200K on inventory, maintenance and shipping is not wealthy. It's a small business.
3) Tax rates do not cost money. Government costs money. Tax rates cannot cost $900B but government can spend money before the receipts come through the door.
4) Incoherent? Financial lifeblood? It's only incoherent to people who think that government can solve every problem and just needs more money to do so.
5) I'll agree, if government could be trusted to spend the money to bring down the deficit I'd support tax hikes to pay it off. As we have never seen the government willing to spend money in the manner it was intended, why trust them to start now?
6) The current tax rates are the status quo. Raising them in the middle of a recession and down economy would cause more damage to wounded economy that is trying to perk up.
7) Sell out? 13 months of un-funded unemployment benefits, 35% estate tax (that used to be 0% ) and hundreds of billions in un-funded entitlements, incentives and tax credits is not a sell-out.
8 ) It's unwarranted disillusionment. Boo hoo, the libs didn't get to stick it to the rich guy, their class warfare has been put on hold. Obama got the lion's share in this deal but no one is paying attention to all the crap he got.

I hope this compromise goes down in flames. Oddly enough I'm cheering for the Democrats on this one.