This "compromise" isn't necessary, there is a better way.

[MadHound]

The stick that is being held over our heads boils down to one thing, the extension of unemployment benefits for a year. In exchange we hand over at least 140 billion dollars to the rich and well off, and quite possibly much, much more.

But we don't need to make this deal with the devil, and sadly, not just Obama, but the 'Pugs know this. We can pay for extension of unemployment benefits, for thirteen months, out of the unspent stimulus funds. In fact the 'Pugs are dithering around, making noise about forcing Obama to do just this instead of borrowing the money for such extensions.

So why not call their bluff. Extend unemployment benefits now, using the remaining stimulus funds. Then demand to know if the 'Pugs are willing to refuse the middle class tax cuts, and beat them over the head on this point. Hold steady, and if this game of chicken ends in a crash, what's the damage? Our tax rates go back to the Clinton era tax rates, big whoop.

No, we wouldn't get that nifty little bonus package of tax cuts and tax credits, but do we really need those nearly ineffectual forms of economic stimuli? No, and frankly we can't afford to make the middle class tax cuts permanent either.

So this stand would be a win for all except the 'Pugs. The unemployed get their benefits extension, the rich don't get their tax breaks, and the rest of us, well, if we don't get a tax cut, we will wind up with a much more balanced budget. But best of all, for once, the administration will have stood up, fought back, and punched the 'Pugs a good one in the mouth.

This is how we resolve this situation, not by caving and capitulation. What the sad irony of this is, is that the 'Pugs might just force the unemployment benefits might just come out of the unspent stimulus funds anyway. And thus we would get little except for a handful of magic bipartisan beans in exchange for giving away the farm to the rich.

We need to stop this "compromise", this give away. We don't need it, we don't want it, and it is going to
cost far too much for us to bear.

[theaocp]

1. There is never a "better way"

when you have the chance to give in to the pukes. Democrats: they're what's for dinner. :sarcasm:

[tekisui]

2. I kept trying to understand why the Dems failed to get the unemployment

benefits. They had plenty of time, but dicked around to the last minute and batched it. I think I get it now. They needed and excuse to extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yet, a pathetic freeze on federal wages is done under the guise of cutting the deficit.The next step will be cuts to our social services. It boggles the mind.

[BzaDem]

4. You think they magically had some power then they don't have now? Last time, benefits expired

for weeks until the new WV senator was sworn in and Collins/Snowe relented. They only relented AFTER they expired. You really think they would have relented months before they would have expired again?

[tekisui]

8. No, they never had power, if they did they don't know how to use it.

They Dems are failures, plain and simple.

[MadHound]

9. Sure, if they really wanted a fight, they would have pulled the unemployment extension

Out of the remaining stimulus funds, and then freed of that constraint, dared the 'Pugs to turn down a tax cut for the middle class and everyone else. They would have done that back in November and could have slammed the 'Pugs in the fight.

Instead they caved, completely. The only thing that will complete this cave is if McConnel gets the Obama administration to pay for the UI extension out of the stimulus funds anyway.

[tekisui]

15. The real completion of the cave will be when social services are gutted to

pay for the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Repukes couldn't have done it better.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Ding, ding, ding! eom

[chimpymustgo]

13. Why, the steal from the poor crowd couldn't have PLANNED it any better.

[BzaDem]

3. Oh that's exactly what we need. 610 billion of anti-stimulus for middle class tax cut expiration

over 2 years, while reducing the first stimulus to pay for unemployment funds. Not to mention the loss earned income tax credit extension (Obama's stimulus) and payroll tax stimulus (replacement for Obama's making work pay tax credit).

There is a huge difference in going back to the Clinton tax rates when the economy is at least nominally growing a non-negligible amount (good), and going back to the Clinton tax rates when the economy is in the tank (bad).

Too many people associate supply-side-economics with all forms of tax cut stimulus. Temporarily extending tax credits to people most likely to spend (and therefore increase demand, which is way too low right now) is not supply-side-economics. It is Keynesian economics. It is the only form of stimulus that will actually pass in a non-fantasy universe right now. It gets much more bang for the buck than the tax cuts for the rich, even if it doesn't get as much as infrastructure projects.

[MadHound]

7. Wow, a supposed Democrat, liberal, arguing for tax cuts,

The least effective form of economic stimulus going.

Even Clinton, bless his DLC heart, recognized that we needed revenue to keep the economy going.

So let's say we do lard on another 3 trillion dollars for the middle class tax cuts over the next ten years. How soon before deficit hawks start circling DC, calling for, and receiving cuts in SS, Medicare and other middle class programs. I'd say about a month. And how would that effect the middle class, working class and poor? Oh, yeah, it would destroy them. Mission accomplished.

So this is what you're arguing for, fiscal irresponsibility, caving to the rich, using the least effective form of economic stimuli, all for what, a few hundred dollars a year in taxes. Tell you what bub, I'm willing to pay my fair share, and I'm unemployed(though my wife isn't). Are you?

[BzaDem]

12. Clinton had a DIFFERENT economy than we face today.

Middle class tax credits are much more effective than wealthy tax cuts at stimulating the economy IN A RECESSION. This is different than in a growing economy (such as Clinton's), where the economy does not need to be stimulated and we need to worry about the debt.

"So let's say we do lard on another 3 trillion dollars for the middle class tax cuts over the next ten years."

Why don't we focus on what is going to pass in this reality, as opposed to an alternate one. Either Obama is re-elected and that will not happen, or a Republican is elected and that occurs REGARDLESS of whether they expire this month.

"So this is what you're arguing for, fiscal irresponsibility, caving to the rich, using the least effective form of economic stimuli, all for what, a few hundred dollars a year in taxes."

It's pretty ironic how you are accusing me of being a "supposed Democrat" for arguing for basic Keynesian economics, when you are using the Republican talking point that it is "fiscal irresponsibility" to stimulate the economy in a recession. I would be perfectly fine paying Clinton's tax rates. It is not about me. It is about basic Keynesian economics applied to the economy as it exists today (as opposed to how it existed in the 90s, how it exists according to a non-Keynesian, etc).

[MadHound]

16. But you're not arguing Keynesian economics, except in your own mind

And the fact of the matter, if you would bother to actually study Keynes, is that tax cuts, no matter if they're for the poor, middle class or the rich, are the least effective form of economic stimulus going. That fact, not fiction.

If you truly want to stimulate the economy, then surely you agree we should get as big a bang for our buck as possible, right? Therefore the three most effective forms of economic stimuli are increasing food stamps, unemployment insurance (which would be taken care of under my plan) and the creation of a WPA style jobs program. Yes, I know, I know, you don't think that we could pass such a plan, that the Dems are powerless, even though they continue to control the Senate and WH. But you're wrong. What it would take is for the Dems to stand up and fight, Obama to take to the bully pulpit, but a deal could be done.

But it is apparent that the Democrats don't want to fight, and it is sad that so many people are supporting this sort of spinelessness. If they would stand up and fight, a much better deal could be worked out, not just on this issue, but on others.

In two years, what is going to significantly change? We will, at this rate, see much more Republican power in DC, and if that is the case, then those tax cuts, especially for the rich, will become permanent.

And we will all pay. There is a group of bipartisan deficit hawks already circling around SS, Medicare and other such programs. Increasing the debt load, as this deal does, will only encourage them, and then what, utter disaster as SS and other beneficial programs get cut. That's reality.

[BzaDem]

20. The entire premise of your argument is that we could somehow wave a wand and get a WPA.

Your entire argument melts apart for anyone who sees through that fanciful assumption. The LEAST effective form of stimulus is better than ANTI-STIMULUS.

[MadHound]

23. The entire premise of your argument is defeatism and caving

Has been since Obama came into office.

The facts of the matter is that you don't know what you can achieve until you try it. And you can't achieve anything unless you're willing to fight for it.

You think that the 'Pugs are immune to public sentiment, but they're not. If you hammered the 'Pugs on not extending the middle class tax cuts, especially with the Tea Party flogging them, they would cave. And given the state of economy, if Obama and the Dems took to the bully pulpit, they could probably get some sort of serious jobs creation program.

But all you preach is defeatism and caving. How is that going to help anything, now or in the future?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Am A Liberal And Favor Tax Cuts For The Poor Because They Ease Their Burden

~

[MadHound]

17. Then you favor the least effective form of economic stimulus going,

And a position that has traditionally been ascribed to Republicans.

[BzaDem]

22. There is a huge difference between Republican tax cuts for the rich that "stimulate investment"

(when they actually don't), and Keynesian tax cuts for the poor and middle class that stimulate demand.

[MadHound]

24. Yes, there is, but again, according to Keynes and all sane economist since then

Tax cuts, no matter for which class, no matter how much, are the least effective form of stimulus. Hell, remember when Bush boy handed out that free money a few years back to "stimulate the economy"? It was a bust because most people used that money to pay down debt or put it in the bank. The same thing will happen with tax cuts.

Get this through your head, tax cuts, of any kind, for any class, are the least effective form of economic stimulus going, period. That is basic Econ 101 stuff. Perhaps you should go back and do some study.

[BzaDem]

27. Do you understand that in your broad category of "least effective stimulus"

there are some forms of "least effective stimulus" that are more effective than other forms of "least effective stimulus," and that both are better than contractionary anti-stimulus?

"It was a bust because most people used that money to pay down debt or put it in the bank."

Do you understand the difference between giving someone a NEW check, and taking away an EXISTING check they have been factoring into their spending habits for a decade?

[MadHound]

30. Wow, keep digging that hole there sport,

You're denial of simple economic principles is breathtaking, simply breathtaking. Your parsing of words is amusing, but useless. "More effective than other forms of "least effective stimulus?" Kinda like more lively forms of death, is that what you're trying to say.

And again, study your economics, what do people do with tax money? Sure, some spend it, but most either save it or pay down debt.

Tax cuts, least effective form of economic stimuli going. You can try and argue around that, but you will fail because it is simply and concisely an economic fact and reality. And the fact that you keep pursuing this line of argument just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt you are.

A Democrat arguing for Republican principles, how sad.

[BzaDem]

34. Oh, I'm the one who's "intellectually bankrupt," says the one who believes in fantasy economics

continuously refuted every day by progressive economists like Krugman/Delong/Stiglitz. You continue to worry about our "short term deficit problem" that we should resolve by repealing Obama's extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poor, that the poor get each and every year and just use to "pay down debt." Because after all, if we don't, hyperinflation will be just around the corner.

Honestly, with a few exceptions, one could learn a whole lot about economics by reading your posts and taking away the exact opposite of what you say. That's pretty sad.

[MadHound]

36. Wow, now you're trying to cram lies into my mouth, a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

Look, it is obvious that you have either don't know economic reality, or worse, don't care. It is obvious that all you care about is deflecting criticism from Obama. Therefore I'm going to cut this short and say goodbye to you, there are more productive ways to spend my time than arguing nonsense with the intellectually dishonest. So get your childish last little word in and then we can both move on.

But whatever you do, don't shove lies like "that we should resolve by repealing Obama's extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poor," off on me, because I said no such thing and you know it. You are going overboard on your intellectual dishonesty, probably because you know that your position on this issue is wrong.

Bye:hi:

[BzaDem]

38. You continuously say we shouldn't have extended the tax cuts because of the deficit.

And you know it. You have been repeating it this entire thread and in other threads. "Ineffective tools" and all that garbage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Actually It Was George McGovern Who First Proposed The EITC Or The Negative Income Tax

~

[MadHound]

26. And a position that was taken over by Nixon, Reagan and the Republicans

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

You're in good company there:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Just Because They Stole McGovern's Idea Doesn't Make It A Bad One

Why is helping the working poor a bad thing?

[MadHound]

31. Know, but again, tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective form of econmic stimuli

Do you understand that? It isn't about attacking the poor, it is about getting the biggest bang for our buck when it comes to spending money on stimulating the economy. Why are you so adamant that we continue to employ the least effective methods of economic stimuli in these times of dire economic need?

[BzaDem]

29. Are you serious? You are now making a case against... the Earned Income Tax Credit???

Were you against Obama's stimulus bill too? Because it expanded the deficit (gasp!), and had some tax cuts, like, an expansion of the horrible evil Earned Income Tax Credit? Are you really being serious?

[MadHound]

33. No, but you know that, you're just trying to shove words in my mouth

Because your own case is so weak.

What I am saying, as I've said time and again on this thread, is that tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective form of economic stimuli going. Furthermore, in this time of economic crisis, we need to employ the most effective forms of economic stimuli we have. Why don't you agree with that? Why do you keep on insisting we use the least effective forms of economic stimuli? How much will you benefit from these tax cuts? Is that why you continue to push them beyond all reason?

As far as the stimulus bills go, yes, I was disappointed in it. Not just some tax cuts, but nearly forty percent of the stimulus bill was made up of tax cuts and tax credits. Hell, they cut out things like sixteen billion dollars in new school construction and school repair to make way for . . .more tax cuts. I opposed the bill on the same grounds, if you are in desperate economic times you need to get the most bang for your stimulus buck, and tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective economic stimuli, bar none. Why are you so gung ho on using such ineffective tools? Do you want to see this economy fail?

[BzaDem]

35. Why are you so blindly determined to live in a magical reality where we can pass any kind of

stimulus we damn well please? Given your repeated refusal to acknowledge reality, do YOU want to see the economy fail?

[MadHound]

37. You think that I'm living in a magical reality? Have you looked in a mirror lately?

:rofl:

It's been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. Bye:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. And Paying For Unemployment Insurance Rather Than Borrowing The Money

Violates another bedrock Democratic principle that unemployment insurance which is stimulative spending doesn't have to be immediately paid for in a recession.

Opposing tax cuts for everybody has never been a bedrock Democratic principal.

And "paying for unemployment insurance" now when Dems said they wouldn't would be a cave as well.

I agree with the late Ted Kennedy when he said "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[MadHound]

11. Apparently not fighting back is another such bedrock principle

Don't you get it, you take the most vulnerable piece off the table, and then dare the 'Pugs to forego a tax cut for everybody. You can beat the shit out of them on middle class tax extensions, and without the Achilles heel of unemployment, you can win.

And since when are Democrats into being fiscally irresponsible? After all, isn't that why Clinton gave us these tax rates, to bring fiscal responsibility after the massive debt racked up by Reagan and Bush I?

[LWolf]

5. +1

[Catherina]

6. Rec'd n/t

[jillan]

19. All he had to say was he will VETO any bill that has tax cuts for the rich & that Congress

was to have a bill on his desk that included an extension of unemployment benefits & an extension of middle class tax cuts before they went home for Christmas break. Period.

[MadHound]

21. That may or may not have worked, though I would have loved to seen the attempt

I would love to see any signs of a spine in Obama and the Dems. But if you paid for UI extension out of the stimulus, it would take the trump card out of the 'Pugs hand, and then the Dems could really bash them.

But sadly, that's not going to happen, the only move that Obama and the Dems know is the two step cave.

[udbcrzy2]

32. We're screwed!

I thought the stimulus money was many, many tax cuts included by the republiCONs who voted against it.
They waited so long to do anything with this tax deal, so that they could have political theater and
it reminds me of the healthcare bill..

[MadHound]

39. kick n/t

[MadHound]

40. kick n/t

[blindpig]

41. Fat chance, there is no intent. n/t