The last few years of the Clinton Presidency, the United States Government experienced a surplus in its Budget planning and actually made money. If I remember correctly, this was one of the main arguments for the Bush tax cuts, that the evil federal government shouldn't be running a surplus off the backs of the people. forward through eight years of total apathy to the federal deficit growing and growing and we reach the presidency of another democrat. now everyone wants to correct the the budget deficit again. so lets say in four year we reach a point where we achieve the magical surplus again. will conservatives again change their tune and again be upset that the evil federal government turns a profit.
Not directly related to this topic, but I'm starting to like the Dems' potential compromise on the Bush tax cuts. From a policy perspective, it sucks - there's no rational reason to extend the high end cuts. But from a political perspective, this may turn out brilliant. First, they are going to force through a bunch of their own agenda items like START, unemployment benefits, etc. Hopefully DADT as well, though I'm not sure about that. In exchange, they allow the top-tier tax cuts to go for 2 more years. Where the real brilliance of this comes in is that it becomes a key 2012 campaign issue. But instead of being a tax cut campaign issue, it's a "tax cuts for the wealthy" campaign issue. If the GOP wants to keep these long term, they have to fight for tax cuts ONLY for the wealthy, while the Dems argue in favor of deficit reduction. Every Dem Rep and Senate candidate can force the GOPers to take an ugly stance on this issue or cave to the Dem position. Dems are stupid, so I don't think they have actually thought through this, so I can't give them credit for it. But I do think this would be the end result if the compromise that seems to be talked about the most ends up happening.
You have way more faith than I do that this will all be included, they are masters of negotiating with themselves thus far.
Yeah - I'm only referring to the potential compromise being discussed. If anything changes then we have the dumbass Dems again. But some of the top Senate Dems seem to have grown at least a little bit of a spine in the last week or so. I love Schumer's comments, and I'm happy (and surprised) that Reid actually held some votes. It would have been much nicer if they did that prior to the election, of course...
Dems and Obama loose big time. Perhaps they hope to have a victory some time in the future as Major theorizes. I'm sure they hope for just his plan. The GOP can claim to be against the deficit, while raising it, for the little pissed off hurting Tea Party folks while blocking their unemployment insurance before Christmas, they can come off wanting to block tax cuts for the lower 98% while fighting uncompromisingly for tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile Obama comes off for what?
glynch, can you please leave that in the other fifty threads you call him and the Dems week. I meant this thread to be a discussion on the end game of fiscal policy. for 20 years people complained about the deficit. then clinton and congress achieved surplus, only to have the argument changed, as if it was evil for the government to run a surplus.
although i hope the dems win on this and only the under 250K tax cuts are extended (temporarily) I don't think it is honest to say the 2001 tax cuts failed when 3 months after they were put into law we saw the stock market closed for the longest in it's history since the great depression. some other stuff happened that week also.
okay, even though this isn't the discussion I was trying to promote, how much do you think 9-11 had to do with our current economic situation.
So what will you call it when the President "compromises" on the tax cut extension that will add, reportedly, $700 billion plus to our national debt over the next decade, when this very issue was a key part of his campaign? And he does it to extend unemployment benefits and reportedly pass a new START treaty? Both issues he should be hammering the Republicans with, over and over and over again. Republicans pissing on millions of Americans and their families just before the holidays, with a lot of bad consequences. That money would have been spent in the economy. It would have helped to keep familes from being tossed out onto the streets and onto the public pocketbook, causing untold misery and hardship for those affected, and untold millions in state and local spending that they can ill afford to undertake. Republicans endangering national security on an issue they supported themselves in the past, but oppose simply because Obama is for it. And Major, I see nothing "brilliant" about this. What I do see is a lot of wishful thinking, similar to the wishful thinking prior to the last election. Wishful thinking I saw more often than I can count. How did that work out?
Silly hypo. Obama just proposed a "compromise" in which the deficit will grow some more per the Congressional Budget Office or virtually any economist. To play along. Of course the GOP would want more tax breaks and Obama would go along with them rather than look like he was not being bi-partisan.
So what you are saying is that people like me shouldn't bother replying to threads like this started by you? Why did I bother writing my post? A response like that tells me I shouldn't have taken the time. That all I want to do is "b****." Thanks. I'll try to remember to use that the next time I disagree with glynch which, as he would tell you, is very frequently.
because I was only trying to revisit the original reason for the tax cuts. the notion that the government shouldn't be running a surplus. I just find it ironic that we've come full circle. that's all. It really has little to do with Obama. you guys have fifty threads to attack his current compromise policies in.
The $700 billion is the cost projection for a permanent extension. A 2-year extension wouldn't cost nearly as much. What are you trying to say here? That he shouldn't compromise, and in effect, let those millions of people lose their unemployment benefits? Or that he should, so you can yell at him about compromising with Republicans? The President doesn't have control over this at this point. He can't just yell and scream about unemployment benefits and make it happen. He can't taunt the GOP into giving in since there is no election coming up soon. The reality is that the Dems screwed up by not resolving the tax issue before the election. At this point, they are in a bind. The GOP can simply wait this out if they want, and then when they have control of the House, pass a ball extending all tax cuts permanently and force the President into that or letting rates go up on the middle class. We got two landmark pieces of legislation and more major accomplishments than any administration in 40 years. 40 million people will have access to health care soon, a Democratic Party goal for at least half a century. The financial system will be undergoing the most significant regulatory changes in decades. As a sidebar, we also avoided a 2nd Great Depression. Given the circumstances, I'd say it worked out pretty damn well.
Both parties agree to keeping the bulk of the tax cuts. The remaining portion would likely cost us 60-70 billion a year. It's the fat person ordering 3 servings of food and debating on diet or regular coke, people.
Not sure on unemployment benefits. For the tax cuts, $700B over 10 years, so that's about $70B per year. The cost actually goes up each year, so it's probably closer to $60B / yr early on and $80B / yr later, but I'm just guessing there.
I'd rather pay more taxes than let the rich get another freaking break. Just let them expire and blame it on the Republican's inability to compromise. We can lower rates again once the deficit is reduced. Raise taxes, cut military spending by 5% or more, raise SS age, force the banks that we bailed out to lend a certain amount of funds to small businesses at their discretion, don't over-regulate risky businesses (energy) and reduce as much spending as possible.
