Do the right thing

[rubato]

One would think that it was obvious that after the worst 2 presidential term with the worst legislation which has produced the worst outcome in 80 years that a smart person would simply undo all of the stupid things BushCo had done.


No so, apparently.


Every Republican who says he or she is for a balanced budget yet who votes to borrow an additional $2.2 - 3 Trillion /10 years to give tax breaks principally for the top 5% is a shrieking liar.



______________________
Diane Lim Rogers Applies the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations to the U.S. Congress

DLM is, of course, 100% correct:

EconomistMom.com » Blog Archive » Can We Do the Non-Crazy Thing with the Bush Tax Cuts?: I am no longer going to try to talk people into seeing that the “right” thing to do with the Bush tax cuts would be to let them all expire. (The even “righter” thing would have been to never have enacted them in the first place.) I am just going to urge the policymakers to avoid doing something with the Bush tax cuts that seems totally contradictory to the fiscal policy goals–both shorter-term and longer-term–that they claim to have....

What a juxtaposition to have President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission release its final report while the Administration “negotiates” with Congress on whether all of the Bush tax cuts, or just most of them, should be permanently extended (and deficit financed).... [T]he permanent extension of “just” the “middle-class” Bush tax cuts, as President Obama has proposed, would add about $2.2 trillion to the debt over the next ten years–without interest costs and without the associated extension of Alternative Minimum Tax relief.... Extending the upper bracket cuts along with the rest would raise the ten-year cost to close to $3 trillion.... So the Administration and Congress are debating over whether we should commit to over $2 trillion, versus closer to $3 trillion, in deficit-financed Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the President’s fiscal commission has recommended that federal revenues be increased as part of a package of policy changes that would get deficits down to economically sustainable levels by 2015 and beyond.... [T]he central message on tax policy from all of the various commissions, task forces, and study groups that have reported recently is pretty simple: beyond the next couple years, we need more revenue, not less.

That’s why I think it’s crazy to be arguing about which portions of the Bush tax cuts should be permanently extended. The first-best debate should be over whether to extend any of them at all, because whether it comes to our short-term tax policy needs (stimulate demand in the economy) or our longer-term tax policy needs (raise more adequate revenue in pro-growth ways), the Bush tax cuts are far from the best (even tax) policy to address those needs....

I think most Americans who are paying attention to today’s fiscal policy news are probably shaking their heads and/or cussing and/or laughing in a dark-humor sort of way. It seems both ridiculous and tragic that our leaders can proclaim their intent to get our fiscal house in order out of one side of their mouths, while arguing to keep (forever) their favorite piece of the fiscally-reckless and economically-ineffective Bush tax cuts out the other.... So I make one open wish today... that policymakers could consider doing at least the “non-crazy” thing with the Bush tax cuts and stop proposing that any of them be permanently extended...

Obama should veto any extensions of the Bush tax cuts, and press for a short-term stimulus that has a reasonable bang-for-buck ratio.

... "
______________________________-


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Putting it another way...

Let's screw the people who are more successful than I am. It won't cost ME anything, and it will make me feel good, to boot.

BTW, was the Consitution suspended in the early part of this century? If all Tax legislation starts in the (Democrat) House of Representatives, how can there be a "Bush" tax cut?

[Scooter]

One could start with the fact that the House of Representatives was in Republican hands from 1995 to 2007...

[rubato]

Putting it another way...

Let's screw the people who are more successful than I am. It won't cost ME anything, and it will make me feel good, to boot.
... "

But you are less successful than I am and my changes to the tax code would raise my own taxes more than yours.

Irony?


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

One could start with the fact that the House of Representatives was in Republican hands from 1995 to 2007...

Hey, don't blame dgs for wanting to forget that it was the Republicans who screwed up the economy so badly. If I were a Republican I'd want to forget it too...

(BTW, one could also point out that since those tax cuts--as enacted by the (Republican) Congress and signed by the (Republican) President--were set to legally expire at the end of 2010, if you call the resulting reversion to the previous tax rates a "tax hike" then you should call it a "Republican tax hike". They wrote the law, after all.)

[liberty]

What program is that the federal government is involved in that they should not be? The only one that really comes to mind is education. They really have no role in education. It has always been and should remain a state and locally concern. I don’t think that it is a good thing to have the national government deciding what children in my community should learn or how local schools should be run. The parents should have more to say about it than anyone else.

How much money could be saved if the federal government got out of the education business?

[dgs49]

Dear Liberty,

Please explain why the Federal Government should be in the:

Broadcast/news/entertainment business,

The "fine arts,"

The Mortgage loan business,

The Business Loan business,

Farming,

Retirement planning,

Healthcare,

The Paying-people-not-to-work business,

Predicting the weather/future climate,

Car manufacturing,

Banking,

Subsidizing peoples' housing costs.

Just curious.

[Andrew D]

Dear Liberty:

Please explain why the U.S. government should be "regulat[ing] Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States ...."

Oh, wait ....

[rubato]

"... The parents should have more to say about it than anyone else.

... "

A perfect model for keeping people just as ignorant as their parents.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

Dear Liberty:

Please explain why the U.S. government should be "regulat[ing] Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States ...."

Oh, wait ....

Because when we had a confederation and each stated regulated its own commerce we had anarchy. Several states were on the verge of going to war with each other on territorial and economic concerns. The idea of pooling the regulation of interstate commerce in a central government has worked out pretty well for us. In truth as far as the regulating the national economy goes, a federation is a much better system.

[dgs49]

Do the Right Thing:

From recent indications, Our Beloved President has agreed to extend the "Bush" tax cuts for a while, reduce the payroll tax, extend unemployment benefits, etc., etc., etc.

See, he can learn from his experiences.

[Andrew D]

I don't see how much learning has gone on. The long-recalictrant Republicans have finally pushed into a true compromise: They went along with extending unemployment benefits, which they oppose (even though it will stimulate the economy); and the Democrats (who have been trying to compromise with the Republicans on various things but have been rebuffed) went along with continuing the tax cuts for the wealthiest few, which they oppose (and which do not stimulate the economy). So I suppose that one could say that the Republicans learned something.

P.S.: My question to you, liberty, was a parody of dgs49's.

[Jarlaxle]

What program is that the federal government is involved in that they should not be?

Almost all of them, actually!

[rubato]

I don't see how much learning has gone on. The long-recalictrant Republicans have finally pushed into a true compromise: They went along with extending unemployment benefits, which they oppose (even though it will stimulate the economy); and the Democrats (who have been trying to compromise with the Republicans on various things but have been rebuffed) went along with continuing the tax cuts for the wealthiest few, which they oppose (and which do not stimulate the economy). So I suppose that one could say that the Republicans learned something.

P.S.: My question to you, liberty, was a parody of dgs49's.

(sigh)

Maybe you're right and I should try to see the whole thing in a more positive light. My initial reaction was not to consider the effect on the current economic situation but to focus on the long-term effects on the deficit. But perhaps keeping us from slipping back into a recession is adequate cause for the compromise.

It is very discouraging to see a tax code which advantages the top 5% by punishing the bottom 80% coming out of the Obama WH. But we will see what happens in two years.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The deal that was worked out is one I completely approve of and will be beneficial for the country. I believe that both the tax cut extensions and the unemployment benefit extensions were the right thing to do.

This gives me at least some glimmer of hope that Obama will for the first time actually attempt to engage in real compromise and bi-partisanship, rather than just flap his gums about it, which of course is all he did in the first two years of his Presidency. Perhaps he's going to at last make a serious effort. If so it will be much to the country's benefit.

Of course this has the left wing of his own party in a major hissy fit. (I've been listening to them cry and whine on BSNBC all day.)

Apparently not satisfied with a 61 seat loss in the House, this bunch won't be satisfied until they have managed to lose the Presidency as well...

There's even talk of a leftwing primary challenger for Obama....

No President in modern times who has faced even a semi-serious primary challenge within his own party has ever been re-elected.

[liberty]

I don't see how much learning has gone on. The long-recalictrant Republicans have finally pushed into a true compromise: They went along with extending unemployment benefits, which they oppose (even though it will stimulate the economy); and the Democrats (who have been trying to compromise with the Republicans on various things but have been rebuffed) went along with continuing the tax cuts for the wealthiest few, which they oppose (and which do not stimulate the economy). So I suppose that one could say that the Republicans learned something.

P.S.: My question to you, liberty, was a parody of dgs49's.

Well Andrew that is what I figured, but it felt like a teachable moment to me at the time and I just could not help myself; not that you needed it. I Know from experience that you could teach a course on constitutional history yourself without much preparation. But putting it out there makes it available to all.

I love teaching; too bad it didn‘t work out.

[Big RR]

The deal that was worked out is one I completely approve of and will be beneficial for the country. I believe that both the tax cut extensions and the unemployment benefit extensions were the right thing to do.

This gives me at least some glimmer of hope that Obama will for the first time actually attempt to engage in real compromise and bi-partisanship, rather than just flap his gums about it, which of course is all he did in the first two years of his Presidency. Perhaps he's going to at last make a serious effort. If so it will be much to the country's benefit.

Of course this has the left wing of his own party in a major hissy fit. (I've been listening to them cry and whine on BSNBC all day.)

Apparently not satisfied with a 61 seat loss in the House, this bunch won't be satisfied until they have managed to lose the Presidency as well...

There's even talk of a leftwing primary challenger for Obama....

No President in modern times who has faced even a semi-serious primary challenge within his own party has ever been re-elected.

Compromise is good at times, bad at others (and this looks to be one of the former ones), but president should never take for granted the votes of those who put him into office in the first place--that's one of the main reasons Bush I lost, not to mention how Gore could only force a tie. FWIW, if those on the "left" don't feel their interests are being represented by Obama, why should they vote for him; must every vote be reduced to a "lesser of two evils" sum game? Is half a loaf (or a few crumbs) grudgingly tossed at you better than none? IMHO, not always. I think Obama has to reach out to his own party at least as much as he reaches out to the repubs, and has a duty to work with them to achieve (or try to achieve) some of what he campaigned for; making silly statements like "I kept my promises and no democrat should complain" is both arrogant and counterproductive.

As for a "hissy fit", I've heard many on the right whine and complain as well.

[Gob]

Isn't this one of the problems of your system, the whole "president" thing.

A Prime Minister elected from within the party, by the party, whose term coincides with the general election cycle, is surely a better idea.

[dgs49]

I think the main objection to continuing the UEC was that it was giving away money that we don't have.

This was truly a compromise, as demonstrated by the fact that both the left and right wings are unhappy.

Apparently Andrew has a rather distorted view of "parody." I mentioned a short laundry list of things the Federal Government is doing that are clearly prohibited by the Constitution, and Andrew mentions one of the short list of things that the Constitution actually allows the Feds (Congress) to do. NONE of the things on my list had anything to do with regulating interstate or international commerce.

Parody?

Hardly.

[Crackpot]

Gob

Have you really taken a good look at our parties?

And you want our president to be directly beholden to them?