Export thread

White House thinking of extending tax cuts to the rich,

Look, I love keeping as much of my hard earned money as I can, but there has to be a time where we say to ourselves it is time to be responsible for our debts. We are living in a world where we tell our children we have to pay for the services we receive, yet our nation continually kowtows to the electorate.

This is me, saying to you, President Obama, if you cave to this petty, self destructive move designed to benefit the rich while the country desperately needs their help to keep it as great as it is, go fuck yourself. I hope someone with a backbone runs against you in 2012, and I hope they win the Democratic primary.

I can't count the number of times Obama and co. have said, "We wish we had time to do this right, but we need to get this done now, so we're going with the best option we have."

The main reason they put this little bit of work off until it was too late to handle properly was to limit its effect on this recent election.

Now he's just giving excuses for his political impotence.

Change we can believe in, indeed.

-We, the People, in order to form...etc, etc.
-...that government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth.

...lately I do feel that government has become less a servant of the People, though I don't direct my blame at anyone in particular. I do feel angry and frustrated that (national) government is not making their decisions more based on the number and quantity of People affected, however. I would think that all legislation would be revised and tuned until it benefitted the greatest number of People before being signed into effect, but I am often disappointed.

--Patrick

Since I'm no good at talking politics I'll just say...I'm glad you're Krisken again. :hug:

Cajungal said:

Since I'm no good at talking politics I'll just say...I'm glad you're Krisken again. :hug:

Click to expand...

Thanks Cajungal! :hug: It's good to be me again.

Obama needs a spine. I think his head got clouded over by all these people who "knew" what they were doing in politics and so change happened--to him. Not to the country.

And echoing what Patrick said, they have forgotten that they serve the people. It's about pushing their own agenda and getting an easy paycheck from our taxes. I imagine you could count on two hands the number of people within all Congress who feel they want to give to the country, rather than use their positions to take. They argue for their agendas, and they argue over how things are done in the capitol, but they don't have the people's interests at heart.

Obama needs to turn shit around, or the Republicans need to get their heads out of their asses. I want a strong leadership, but everyone elected is a fucking wuss.

Thing is, I expected some wheeling and dealing. That's just how Washington works. Without it, nothing would happen. What I didn't expect was Obama trying so desperately to get the Republicans to like him. News flash, they'll never be your buddy. They hated Clinton because he kicked their asses. They threatened to shut down the government and he said "Go ahead and see what happens." That is how you lead from a bully pulpit.

Opposition isn't supposed to like you. That's just how the game works. They should at least respect you, though. We need the guy back who a year ago looked at Joe Wilson like he was a petulant 4 year old when he shouted "You Lie!" during his speech.

Don't worry, I'm sure republicans will remember they don't have a spine either very soon.

I'm with mr_thehun. We should take a cue from the Canadians of 198 years or so ago, and burn Washington to the ground. Matter of fact we could do it in 2012 and call it a bicentennial.

I'm still up in the air about tax cuts for the rich. Often times the rich are rich for a reason (not always) and it has to do with intelligent utilization of their assets. The more money the rich have, the more money they have to utilize intelligently. Basically a rich person has a statistically higher chance to increase the value of a dollar more than someone else.

With that assumption, it makes sense to allow the rich access to more of their assets, as they create more wealth with their money, and even with lower tax rates the government can make more money by taxing that additional wealth at a lower rate.

However, these days it has become clear that some wealth created isn't real. Therefore, someone who is rich could be someone that invented false wealth (i.e. the mortgage crisis). In the case of this false wealth, it makes more sense to increase taxation on that as it is unsustainable. Grab the taxes on it while you can, because that money will dissapear.

So I could go either way on it. What bothers me is the assumption that the rich inherently deserve higher taxes. That's a potentially dangerous belief that ultimately could lead to lower tax revenues by the government.

Here's some numbers of a idealized situation to back up my point. You can check the calculations if you know how, they aren't shown here.

Mr R can increase his income by reinvestment at a rate of 30% per year. Currently he earns $200,000 a year. Lets look at what the government earns in taxes in 20 years.

Case A
Tax= 10%
Total Taxation Earnings = 3.7 mil


Case B
Tax = 20%
Total taxation earnings = 2.3 mil

Case C
Tax = 25%
Total taxation earnings = 1.65 mil

In the higher tax scenarios, earlier earnings are much higher, but at a certain point the lower income of Mr R outpaces the increased taxation.

This all rides on the assumption that the wealthy know how to sustainably (economically) earn money better than other people, which may or may not be true. With the end goal of the wealthy giving more money, you have to look at long term finances, not short term.

Taxas and such as so hard to understand sometimes.

I think what Necro is saying is what suppose to happen, but right now when the economic are down. A lot of the rich people are "holding" on to their money and not investing into things. People are not buying and thus companies are not hiring..... it is a vicious cycle.

What are personal income tax rates like in the USA? Are they reasonably uniform or do they vary wildly from state to state?

Azurephoenix said:

What are personal income tax rates like in the USA? Are they reasonably uniform or do they vary wildly from state to state?

Click to expand...

Federal income tax is on a progressive scale (the more money you make, the larger percentage of it goes to tax). State income tax varies from state to state, with some states (like New York) having very high income tax rates, and other states (like Texas) having no income tax at all.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

One more reason why Texas is the best state in the country.

One of the things interesting about Colorado, is that it is written in the state constitution that the state must have a balanced budget and any tax money they don't spend must be refunded.

Dei said:

One of the things interesting about Colorado, is that it is written in the state constitution that the state must have a balanced budget and any tax money they don't spend must be refunded.

Click to expand...

Well thats shameful. That money belongs to the government not the people who earned it. Pff.

Wow... here in Alberta we have the lowest combined provincial and federal income taxes in Canada. The highest bracket you can get here is 39% once you're making over $127,021. The highest province would be Nova Scotia with 46.5% total.

Looks like most states are fairly comparable once you get into the high brackets. I gotta say... the no state income tax in Texas is pretty awesome.

Azurephoenix said:

Wow... here in Alberta we have the lowest combined provincial and federal income taxes in Canada. The highest bracket you can get here is 39% once you're making over $127,021. The highest province would be Nova Scotia with 46.5% total.

Looks like most states are fairly comparable once you get into the high brackets. I gotta say... the no state income tax in Texas is pretty awesome.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but bear in mind we still have to pay the federal income tax regardless of state income tax levels, which last year went something to the tune of -

< $8,375 - 10%
< 34,000 - 15%
< 82,400 - 25%
< 171,850 - 28%
< 373,650 - 33%
> 373,650 - 35%

Those are with the much reviled "bush tax cuts for the rich" too, btw.
If those expire, the brackets change to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6%.

Those rates don't take into account the many deductions and itemization. People should be more careful when just throwing around numbers and acting like that is what they really pay.

GasBandit;451553][QUOTE=Azurephoenix said:

Wow... here in Alberta we have the lowest combined provincial and federal income taxes in Canada. The highest bracket you can get here is 39% once you're making over $127,021. The highest province would be Nova Scotia with 46.5% total.

Looks like most states are fairly comparable once you get into the high brackets. I gotta say... the no state income tax in Texas is pretty awesome.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but bear in mind we still have to pay the federal income tax regardless of state income tax levels, which last year went something to the tune of -

< $8,375 - 10%
< 34,000 - 15%
< 82,400 - 25%
< 171,850 - 28%
< 373,650 - 33%
> 373,650 - 35%

Those are with the much reviled "bush tax cuts for the rich" too, btw.
If those expire, the brackets change to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6%.[/QUOTE]

The actual change if they expire would be...
< $8,375 - 10% (no change)
< 34,000 - 15% (no change)
< 82,400 - 27%
< 171,850 - 30%
< 373,650 - 35%
> 373,650 - 38.6%

Source: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax cuts are fine, except these were put into place when we had a surplus (killing the surplus, along with 2 extended wars overseas). They were set to expire precisely because the budget needs the revenue from the income taxes. The last budget was created specifically with the idea that those cuts would expire and we would return to Clinton era taxes. Because the rich are being included in the extension, not just those who need relief to survive, that budget will be an additional 700 billion dollars in debt.

This isn't really hard to follow.

GasBandit said:

If those expire, the brackets revert to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6%.

Click to expand...

FTFY

The government needs revenue if it is going to keep spending on things. The government makes the majority of its money from income taxes. Individual income taxes. Trouble is, corporations make more money than individuals do.

If corporations want to be treated as persons for the sake of 1st amendment expression, etc, then by God they should be subjected to the same tax rate. That would certainly sting.

--Patrick

Dei said:

One of the things interesting about Colorado, is that it is written in the state constitution that the state must have a balanced budget and any tax money they don't spend must be refunded.

Click to expand...

To a guy with keynesian tendencies like me, that seems quite an odd thing to include into a consitution. Is it really so that the state is never allowed to run a surplus or deficit (barring exceptional emergencies, I guess)?

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/ta/special_districts/elections/docs/artX_sec20.pdf

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellit...goBlobs&blobwhere=1251665701857&ssbinary=true

Thank you for those links.

Googling things, it seems your states sure are pretty big on balanced budgets.

Krisken said:

Tax cuts are fine, except these were put into place when we had a surplus (killing the surplus, along with 2 extended wars overseas). They were set to expire precisely because the budget needs the revenue from the income taxes. The last budget was created specifically with the idea that those cuts would expire and we would return to Clinton era taxes. Because the rich are being included in the extension, not just those who need relief to survive, that budget will be an additional 700 billion dollars in debt.

This isn't really hard to follow.

Click to expand...

Actually I agree with you, to a point. I think that the tax cuts should be the default, but in a time of crisis like this you go to a higher taxation on the wealthy. In normal years you want the wealthiest people increasing their capital as it then increases the GDP.

With regards to your last comment, this is the kind of oversimplification that bothers me. Of course, if you look at it like "they have more money than they need, we need money, we should take more of their money" then yeah, its not hard to follow. However, if you accept the sometimes difficult concept that many rich people are rich because they create real value better than other people, then it is important to have them in control of more of their assets when time allows for it. I mean, the math isn't hard to follow on that either.

And its not like the tax cuts are going to help anyone survive. We are talking about an additional 30-100$ a month in the wallets of a middle class american. If that's the difference between making it and not making it, you have already failed.

Short term gains, increase taxes. Long term gains, cut them. Both have their value. The problem is that so many economists/people see the world as a dichotomy of either keynsian or non-keynsian economics, which is simply stupid. Even Bush, as dumb as everyone thinks he is, was able to justify Tarp by saying "if we are looking at another great depression, I'll be an FDR before a Hoover" (or something to that effect.

PatrThom;451592][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

If those expire, the brackets revert to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6%.

Click to expand...

FTFY

The government needs revenue if it is going to keep spending on things. [/QUOTE] Therein lies the rub. The problem is less that we aren't getting a certain 700 billion dollars in tax revenue and more that we're spending 3.55 trillion dollars. I'd feel better about raising tax rates if I thought it might actually be put into place along with at least double that amount in spending cuts. If wikipedia is right (and I know that's a big if), the expected tax receipts for 2010 ($2.381 trillion) would have been enough to cover the 2004 budget ($2.293 trillion) with room to spare - and that's WITH the "tax cuts for the rich" still in place. The problem is that it seems spending always goes up, never down. Government never shrinks, only grows, until it collapses under its own weight.

TommiR said:

Thank you for those links.

Googling things, it seems your states sure are pretty big on balanced budgets.

Click to expand...

If only the federal government was half as big on it. But even at the state level, not all our states are so responsible - California in particular is in a horrible debt spiral. I fully expect a "bailout" in the next 1-5 years.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

Krisken said:

Those rates don't take into account the many deductions and itemization. People should be more careful when just throwing around numbers and acting like that is what they really pay.

Click to expand...

Well, we're comparing tax rates to tax rates, aren't we? The other nations in question also allow deductions and itemization, I would assume.

Henry in the House: Tax man (compromise) cometh - CNN.com

A bleary-eyed debate quickly commenced here among reporters and White House aides about whether Axelrod really said anything new -- or whether he said anything at all since The Huffington Post had barely any quotes from the senior adviser. Instead the story mostly consisted of impressions/analysis from the site's new correspondent, Howard Fineman, who I should say at the outset is outstanding and just does not get things wrong.
But White House aides quickly insisted the story was an overreach, with Axelrod telling CNN's Gloria Borger, "I simply said what we've said before -- middle-class tax cuts should be extended permanently, but we can't afford to borrow another $700 billion to permanently extend cuts to the wealthiest. But we're willing to sit down when Congress returns and figure out a way forward that makes sense."
So let's take a close look at what Axelrod said and didn't say. Without an actual quote from Axelrod to this effect, Fineman's story asserted at the top that Axelrod "suggested" -- not that he "said" -- that "the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board, temporary continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers."
Then the story shifted to the word "said" -- again without a quote -- by Fineman adding: "That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week's electoral defeat" in the midterm election.
Then the story quoted Axelrod as saying: "We have to deal with the world as we find it. The world of what it takes to get this done."
Axelrod added, "I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point" about the rich getting tax cuts.
The context here that we can't forget is that Axelrod, framing the issue this way now, is a complete reversal from what Obama said at a news conference two months ago when he drew a line in the sand and said he would only accept an extension of middle-class tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year.
"Now, that seems like a common-sense thing to do," Obama said on September 10. "And what I've got is the Republicans holding middle-class tax relief hostage because they're insisting we've got to give tax relief to millionaires and billionaires to the tune of about $100,000 per millionaire, which would cost over the course of 10 years, $700 billion, and that economists say is probably the worst way to stimulate the economy. That doesn't make sense, and that's an example of what this election is all about."
Obama later in the East Room news conference demanded: "Why hold it up? Why hold the middle class hostage in order to do something that most economists don't think makes sense?"
That may have been a pre-election blunder because at the time conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were begging the president to cut a deal with Republicans on a one-year extension on all Bush tax cuts, including the ones for the rich. The thinking was that it would take taxes off the table as a weapon for Republicans, and it would have given conservative Democrats an accomplishment to point to that might have helped save their seats.
Since the White House is now signaling that a potential compromise is at least on the table, so shortly after a couple dozen conservative Democrats were cut down at the polls last week, I had more than one Democratic strategist tell me ruefully by phone some variation of this: If the president had just compromised before the election, how many Democratic seats in Congress would have been saved?
Maybe that's revisionist history, but the more important point is that Axelrod's comments to The Huffington Post were not really new. The president himself had already disavowed what he said at the September news conference by saying the day after the election that he was now willing to negotiate on the tax cuts for the rich -- something that had been an ironclad no before the election.
Little noticed was the fact that the president went even further than he did at that November 3 news conference -- and further than Axelrod did to The Huffington Post actually -- in his weekly Internet/radio address last Saturday.
Obama said that with all the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, "the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families" by letting them expire.
"So something's got to be done," Obama added. "And I believe there's room for us to compromise and get it done together."
Aha -- "compromise!" A word Axelrod never used in The Huffington Post interview you will notice.
So The Huffington Post's claim that "Axelrod's remarks were the first public confirmation" of the idea that Obama would accept an across-the-board deal was not really precise.
The headline on The Huffington Post story saying the White House "gives in" on tax cuts for the rich was also a stretch. Axelrod never said -- and neither did the president -- that they're giving in just yet. They've both just said that they're ready to sit down and talk about a deal.
But let's face it -- if The Huffington Post headline had just said the White House is "likely" to give in, it would have been dead-on. After all, there's really only one way Obama is going to get an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, and that's if he gives on the tax cuts for the rich.
Don't forget that Obama's real problem in the Senate is not the GOP. The true hurdle is that conservative Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska are not on board with only passing the middle-class tax cuts. If they had given it a go, Obama might have had a deal before the election.
The most obvious clue of that fact may have come in Axelrod's very last quote to The Huffington Post, which the White House held up as a sign that the senior adviser wasn't saying anything new and was still saying Obama doesn't want to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.
"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," Axelrod said. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."
But a closer look shows that you should pay attention to one key word in there -- "permanently" -- which tells us everything we need to know. Axelrod is indeed saying that if the president had his druthers, he'd prefer not to extend the tax cuts for the rich -- on a permanent basis.
The door is wide open, however, on extending those tax cuts on a short-term basis. And that's the point when you cut through all the spin.

From Seth MacFarlane's Twitter:

Okay GOP, Obama’s tired of your partisanship and will only try to work with you one-kajillion more times.

Click to expand...

And now the left gets taken to task for not applauding a deal he never had to make. a "senior White House insider" claims that the people complaining "haven't read the details". So where in the details of this umpteenth cave to the GOP do you see where your own party is ready to give Mitch McConnell his dream and make you a one-term president? The rumblings of a primary challenge are getting louder.

Unless, of course, the more cynical view takes hold and the newly-elected wingnut faction holds true to their promise and torpedoes the entire thing. Then the GOP can be blamed for crushing unemployment benefits and ruining Xmas for all those "99ers".

Still won't change the fact that when you could've effectively stuffed the GOP into a corner, you not only set them free, but you gave them a limo ride to the airport. The base is not going to forget that.

DarkAudit said:

The base is not going to forget that.

Click to expand...

But the problem remains, they might not forget, but what will they do about it? What can they do about it?

Perhaps by giving the republicans a good seat this election, then in 2012 they can blame everything on the GOP, and strengthen their own hold in that election. Honestly, Obama did not put forth much effort this year to holding things steady for the democrats, and I'm wondering if this was merely a political power move - throw a bunch of democrats under the bus now so he can have a chance at keeping his seat later.

DarkAudit said:

And now the left gets taken to task for not applauding a deal he never had to make. a "senior White House insider" claims that the people complaining "haven't read the details". So where in the details of this umpteenth cave to the GOP do you see where your own party is ready to give Mitch McConnell his dream and make you a one-term president? The rumblings of a primary challenge are getting louder.

Unless, of course, the more cynical view takes hold and the newly-elected wingnut faction holds true to their promise and torpedoes the entire thing. Then the GOP can be blamed for crushing unemployment benefits and ruining Xmas for all those "99ers".

Still won't change the fact that when you could've effectively stuffed the GOP into a corner, you not only set them free, but you gave them a limo ride to the airport. The base is not going to forget that.

Click to expand...

All they had to do to get republican support for unemployment benefit extensions was cut the budget somewhere else in equal measure. But now, as I understand it, the unemployment extension will go through unpaid for in exchange for keeping all the income tax rates where they are (except the death tax). So, one party gives up something they want, and the other party gives up something they want, and both get something else they want? Is this not the definition of compromise, which Jon Stewart, Obama, and everybody else keep clamoring they want? Or do they just want the newspeak "compromise." You know, the more traditional compromise which means "we demonize republicans in the press until they buckle and become democrat lite."

Espy;458456][QUOTE=DarkAudit said:

The base is not going to forget that.

Click to expand...

But the problem remains, they might not forget, but what will they do about it? What can they do about it?[/QUOTE]
Not show up to the polls in 2012. The left was so energized two years ago, and he spent that away like it didn't mean anything. I know I'm pretty disgusted.

What did Republicans 'give up'?

Only in US politics would 'compromise' be considered a bad word.

Adammon said:

Only in US politics would 'compromise' be considered a bad word.

Click to expand...

Only in the U.S. could this deal be considered a 'compromise'.

Krisken;458517][QUOTE=Adammon said:

Only in US politics would 'compromise' be considered a bad word.

Click to expand...

Only in the U.S. could this deal be considered a 'compromise'.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, the only part 'liberals' don't like is the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile ignoring:

The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.
Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months
A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees
Business expensing investments

But I guess because Obama didn't stick it to the fatcats, we can ignore all the rest of the great stuff.

Adammon;458523][QUOTE=Krisken;458517][QUOTE=Adammon said:

Only in US politics would 'compromise' be considered a bad word.

Click to expand...

Only in the U.S. could this deal be considered a 'compromise'.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, the only part 'liberals' don't like is the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile ignoring:

The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.
Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months
A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees
Business expensing investments

But I guess because Obama didn't stick it to the fatcats, we can ignore all the rest of the great stuff.[/QUOTE]
EITC- Republicans wanted this
Child Tax Credit- Republicans wanted this
Tax cuts for Businesses- Republicans wanted this
Cut in payroll tax- Republicans wanted this

So again, how was this a compromise? That was all shit put into the 'stimulus' bill to attract Republican votes. It does the least to stimulate the economy, and now we're spending more.

As I was saying, this is a pretty shit deal.

Krisken;458525][QUOTE=Adammon;458523][QUOTE=Krisken;458517][QUOTE=Adammon said:

Only in US politics would 'compromise' be considered a bad word.

Click to expand...

Only in the U.S. could this deal be considered a 'compromise'.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, the only part 'liberals' don't like is the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile ignoring:

The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit were all pumped up in the stimulus, but set to expire this year. All of them will be extended. Price tag? $40 billion or so.
Unemployment insurance gets extended for 13 months
A 2 percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees
Business expensing investments

But I guess because Obama didn't stick it to the fatcats, we can ignore all the rest of the great stuff.[/QUOTE]
EITC- Republicans wanted this
Child Tax Credit- Republicans wanted this
Tax cuts for Businesses- Republicans wanted this
Cut in payroll tax- Republicans wanted this

So again, how was this a compromise? That was all shit put into the 'stimulus' bill to attract Republican votes. It does the least to stimulate the economy, and now we're spending more.

As I was saying, this is a pretty shit deal.[/QUOTE]

Why would Republicans want extensions for the EITC and Child Tax Credits when it was in Obama's stimulus plan that they originally voted AGAINST? (Remember, only 3 GOP moderates in the Senate voted for it, and all House Republicans voted against it)

You cleverly left out the UI extension, clever!

Apparently your idea to increase taxes to stimulate the economy was ignored, go figure.

No need to get snarky.

They voted against it because Democrats are stupid and believed giving them stuff they asked for would get votes. I remember well that time.

You mean, they believed putting whipped frosting on rat poison would get the republicans to swallow it. Well, 3 RINOs did, so it wasn't a totally bad idea I guess.


But compromise IS a bad thing. The only times in living memory in which spending did not outpace growth in GDP were when the government was locked in loggerheads. When actual cuts are precluded, gridlock is preferable to further malignant growth. That's really what the 2010 election results were about.

I love that narrative. It is always amusing when huge majorities being lost by the political party in power is treated like it is an anomaly.

Compromise only fails in a two party system because in order to win, your opponent has to lose. Parliamentary systems thrive on compromise. I mean, Canada is just booming because of its austerity measures, tax cuts, spending decreases, etc. all because the parties have to reach a compromise on their priorities.

Krisken said:

I love that narrative. It is always amusing when huge majorities being lost by the political party in power is treated like it is an anomaly.

Click to expand...

It's not an anomaly, it's WHY large majorities are lost by those in power. When neither side can run roughshod over the other, and over the budget, that's when the least damage is done. Compromise blows a hole in that.

Adammon said:

Only in US politics would 'compromise' be considered a bad word.

Click to expand...

Given that the president, and nearly the whole party, ran on the concept of "change", had 2/3 of the national gov't on their side, accomplished so little compared to what they should have been able to do, and now are caving in to the GOP... yeah.

Keep in mind that they aren't compromising.

They chose to put the tax cut extension off until after the election. Then they called it a "major emergency" and pretended that they could not "fix it in time" and that they'd have to bow at the alter of tax cuts for the rich because, they claim, the GOP are holding the middle class hostage.

It's a bunch of BS. If they truly wanted to change the tax cuts, they would have.

They are not compromising. They were trying to hold onto their seats by the skin of their teeth.

And now they're pretending that the democrats somehow came out even, or even on top, through the idea that they are compromising.

It's political spin, same as ever.

They promised change - not compromise. They had the house and the senate, and while they prtended that they would work with republicans, they were too busy wrangling their own party's infighting to pay any attention to the GOP.

So yes, true compromise would have been nice, but this is nothing like compromise, and those that are saying it's compromise - well, the reality is that they are compromising their own values by choice.

I'd have a hard time saying "The Democrats". It's The White House all the way on this. Reports are saying Biden was sent to try to gin up support with the House, and they got some stiff opposition. Make no mistake, here, Democrats are NOT happy with this.

Its much better than having the unemployment expire. That would be terrible. All in all, I don't mind, although I vehemently disagree with the temporary repeal of the estate tax. Although I guess it would increase the number of republicans that murder their parents...

That and the dream act. It is going to be a tough sell. I presume the democrats compromise to get this bill passed? (doesn't look good)

Chibibar said:

That and the dream act. It is going to be a tough sell. I presume the democrats compromise to get this bill passed? (doesn't look good)

Click to expand...

I'm going to laugh if the liberal Democrats join with conservative republicans and vote against this.

Obama comes out looking like the good guy for trying to get the two nutbar ends of the spectrum to work together for the public that elected them.

Adammon;458642][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

That and the dream act. It is going to be a tough sell. I presume the democrats compromise to get this bill passed? (doesn't look good)

Click to expand...

I'm going to laugh if the liberal Democrats join with conservative republicans and vote against this.

Obama comes out looking like the good guy for trying to get the two nutbar ends of the spectrum to work together for the public that elected them.[/QUOTE]

heh.
Democrats face long odds on immigration measure - Yahoo! News

Basically (from the article) kids who came to the U.S. under age of 16 (legal or illegal) that has NOW obtain high school diploma or GED + served in the military OR attend college. (I thought in the past that serving in the military help you get your citizenship. That is how my friend got his citizenship)

Now this part

Those afforded legal status under the bill would, however, have to undergo the same background check as any immigrant seeking legal residency.
"These are not the individuals that are threats to our public safety or to our security," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Click to expand...

so basically, these people will qualify for citizenship, but still have to go through the process like everyone else.

::blinks::

No, the Dream Act looks fantastic.

The White House: Pass the bill or the [STRIKE]terrorists[/STRIKE] recession wins.

I used to hate when Bush would demand support for something and equated it to national security, no matter how unrelated to terrorism it actually was. This is the same basic thing. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

I'll tell you from my work, every illegal thinks the Dream Act is going to make them a citizen, regardless of their age, nationality, education, situation in the home country, criminal offenses, etc.

Quite literally, a dream.

So... it's december 8th.. do we have a 2011 budget yet? Did I miss it?

Tress said:

I used to hate when Bush would demand support for something and equated it to national security, no matter how unrelated to terrorism it actually was. This is the same basic thing. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Damn you for making me defend Obama BUT from that same damn article:

"Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters that if the measure isn't passed soon, it will "materially increase the risk the economy would stall out and we would have a double-dip" recession. That put the White House in the unusual position of warning its own party's lawmakers they could be to blame for calamitous consequences if they go against the president."

"Summers' remarks contrasted with Obama's comments at a news conference Tuesday. "We don't have the danger of a double-dip recession," the president said then, noting the impact of the 2009 stimulus bill and other measures meant to steady the economy."

Adammon;458672][QUOTE=Tress said:

I used to hate when Bush would demand support for something and equated it to national security, no matter how unrelated to terrorism it actually was. This is the same basic thing. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Damn you for making me defend Obama BUT from that same damn article:

"Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters that if the measure isn't passed soon, it will "materially increase the risk the economy would stall out and we would have a double-dip" recession. That put the White House in the unusual position of warning its own party's lawmakers they could be to blame for calamitous consequences if they go against the president."

"Summers' remarks contrasted with Obama's comments at a news conference Tuesday. "We don't have the danger of a double-dip recession," the president said then, noting the impact of the 2009 stimulus bill and other measures meant to steady the economy."[/QUOTE]

In light of this, let me amend what I've said. I would hate to see anyone in the administration try to use the vague threat of the recession to get a bill passed. I've always hated that tactic.

escushion said:

I'll tell you from my work, every illegal thinks the Dream Act is going to make them a citizen, regardless of their age, nationality, education, situation in the home country, criminal offenses, etc.

Quite literally, a dream.

Click to expand...

Kinda like how after Obamacare passed, lots of doctors got calls from people wanting to know how they sign up for free health care, right?

GasBandit said:

So... it's december 8th.. do we have a 2011 budget yet? Did I miss it?

Click to expand...

:lalala:

Is this just the White House plan?

Doesn't the house and senate have to pass the budget regardless of who has what plan?

Yes. Typically the White House provides a suggested plan, but congress is ultimately responsible for hammering out the real budget and voting on it.

This is one of those checks and balance areas - the President can make all the executive orders he wants, but if they aren't funded by congress they amount to nil.

That's what I was kind of asking. I wanted to know if that was the plan put forth by the White House and it still needed to go through the House and the Senate yet.

House Democrats defy Obama on tax cut bill – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Heh, well, now they'll be even MORE popular!

Well at least SOMEONE grew a spine today.

Yeah, House Democrats were like "Well, if the Republicans can oppose the President, so can we!"