These tax cuts are a proven job killer. They are nothing but a give-away to the rich, which will guarantee a lack of investment in the US economy. Paying for these tax cuts means borrowing more from Russia and China, who are already manipulating our economy. Even the middle class tax cuts are unjustified. This is more spend now, pay never. Except of course, most of us are actually paying through the nose in lost opportunity and diminishment of our assets, and our children will pay dearly in the future. So far the ultra-rich have been the beneficiaries of this economic policy, without any cost at all.
This is pure out and out socialism. The government is redistributing wealth from the middle class to the rich, and fixing the profit levels for the rich. This is the last straw for me. Obama has done nothing to change economic policy. It is pure Bushonomics.
Before you plan any republiconservabagger replies, please note, I would have faced a tax increase under the alternative plan for a middle class tax cut only. This is not rich vs. middle class warfare, this is ultra-rich vs. everybody warfare, and they are winning.
I think all the Bush tax-cuts should be expired, but I don’t think it should be done while the economy is still in the dumps. Waiting two years seems a good idea. I find people whose priority seems to be putting making the GOP look bad ahead of measures to improve the economy bizarre.
While in a perfect world the top end tax cuts would have been expired while the rest would’ve been extended two years, and further stimulative measures passed, I don’t really have any trouble dealing with a short extension of the top end tax-cuts in return for the rest. Certainly its a lot better then your plan, where our priority isn’t fixing the economy but letting unemployment stay high while stomping our feet and crying about how its the other guys fault.
For the record, the price of the top end tax-cuts are something under 100 billion over the two years, somewhere between a sixth and an eighth of the total package, depending on how big the total bill ends up being.
It’s nice to see that after two “historic” elections in a row, both of them shaking Washington to its core, and making it clear that Americans are not happy with the status quo, this is the compromise we ended up with:
The Republicans got their tax reduction
The Democrats got their welfare increase
There was no spending reduction of any kind, meaning the deficit gets worse
None of the above was done in any way that will actually spur the economy.
I’m not especially anti-unemployment extension, but it’s not a major economic spur. Nor is anyone going to base business or investment decisions based on short-term tax relief.
On the plus side, politicians got to cater to their base, and they both get to use taxes as an issue in 2012.
My thought is that it was probably inevitable that the tax cuts would be extended for two years – just as Peter Orszag suggested suggested in his first OpEd column just days after leaving the White House.
I also think that House Republicans are going to have to grow up to at least some extent once they realize that sharing in the burden of governing is a LOT harder than being in the irrelevant minority. They now have to pass budgets, approve laws, and fulfill their own campaign promises. My fingers are crossed that this is part of a longer term strategy by the White House.
However, what was gained for my side in this compromise is remarkably little. Unemployment benefits had to be extended, as others have said. Even if the deal was made to get the very important nuclear arms treaty passed despite Republican obstructionism, that should have been announced as part of the deal.
But my one comment to the President (should he be checking in here from time to time) is not to take any guff from House Democrats about not having the courage to stand up and fight. Those guys were so afraid of taking any votes this year that they wouldn’t even call up a budget for an open debate, for fear of the electoral consequences of approving the spending needed to keep the government running. If they can’t muster the courage to pass the bills needed to keep the government working for the people, then how dare they criticize Obama for being too cowardly to take on the Republicans?
One comment I heard hinted at a couple of times from the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC, respectively, and outright said by Dan Rather, who was being interviewed by one network, was: “By this capitulation, Obama has guaranteed himself a strong primary challenger in 2012.”
This isn’t redistributing wealth. Wealth starts with the earner. ANY tax redistributes it. This merely changes – decreases – the existing redistribution. You may, of course, argue that it’s wise to redistribute tax burdens towards the wealthy; you cannot say that failing to do so is itself a redistribution.
I doubt the GOP would blink. They are perfectly willing to let the car go over the cliff rather then lose a game of chicken.
He doesn’t need to win the battle, but he needs to be seen at least fighting it. This is another failure on his part. He’s surrendered without letting the country know where he stands.
Clinton is well respected among Democrats not because he won battles, he lost all the time. Every time he lost however it was clear what he would have liked to have. Then after a defeat, he’d get up in front of the press and say ‘I didn’t get what I wanted because those assholes over there’ He made it clear who the opposition was.
Right now the Republicans get what they want without political consequence and people are left seeing the Democratic party as one that stands for nothing.
After getting their asses handed to them in the election because their own base wasn’t motivated to show up, the Democratic party has proven those voters where right not to bother. The Democrats do nothing to inspire them to vote Democrat. Sadly it isn’t even the House or Senates fault this time, though the senate can take a little blame on their last vote, but the failure is leadership from the President.
Maybe - probably - someone will run against BHO in the primaries come 2012. Maybe he/she will even win a few delegates. But if the Democrats nominate anyone except Obama for any reason besides Obama being dead or dying, they are handing over the White House to the Republicans. Everybody knows that, including Dan “Forgery? What forgery?” Rather.
I can almost see enough sniping from the lefties causing Oba**ma to pull a “fuck this, it’s too much like work” in 2012 a la LBJ and retiring to write another book, and that being how Sarah Palin becomes President. Not my desired outcome, although 'twould be entertaining as hell.
Agreed. When the republicans made it known that were planning to basically take congress hostage through procedural nonsense earlier, Obama should have gone on television and made a speech reading them the riot act. At this point the left just wants to know that he’s DOING SOMETHING. He should have let them stall things up and pointed it out mercilessly until both sides got their acts together. The president has nothing if not the “bully pulpit”. As a parent of two he should know that giving the tantrum throwing child what he wants is NOT the way to get what YOU want out the deal.
Count me as one who would be happy to see a credible and strong primary challenger to Obama in 2012. I know I am not alone. I do not know if those who agree with me are enough. Guess we’ll have to wait and see. Devil is in the details and all that.
And this is why we have the deficit we do. The Democrats (broadly speaking) want higher taxes and higher spending, but care more about the spending. The Republicans want lower taxes and lower spending, but care more about the taxes. Hence, we get the inevitable compromise we see today: “Ok, you’ll get your spending increase if you agree to our tax cut, and then we’ll both point to this and blame the other party for adding to the deficit.”
From the NY Times: “The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt…”
One thing to remember before harping on Obama, the Republicans in the senate are hysterical children. They would scuttle national security and unemployment just to be contrary. Until the filibuster is reformed there is no chance to deal with lockstep stupidity as personified by the Tea-Party Intimidated Senate.
The Bush top-level tax cuts are the worst thing you can do to create jobs. They add a few, but at a cost only a complete partisan would think is a good idea.
The top level tax cuts will add around 100 to 200k jobs over what the Dems want to do. cite
The same money could have paid for the unemployment benefits which would add around 600k jobs. PDF cite
If Republicans were able to count, we would be on the same page here. But simple arithmetic doesn’t matter, because they don’t care about facts. They exist to promulgate an ignorant ideology based on wishful-thinking and bullshit fantasy.
And yet I am willing to bet that while Obama and the Dems will take lumps from the left on this the Tea Bagger right will see it as a victory and be content. Never mind that their rally cry was reducing the deficit.
As proof of this are there any Tea Bagger candidates elected in the past election who are screaming bloody murder about this? If so I haven’t seen one. (And yeah, I know they are not in Congress yet but they could still talk about it if they wanted to.)
This is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds:
The unemployment extension doesn’t create jobs, other than in a Keynesian sense of pumping more money into the economy. It actually lowers job creation by providing an alternative to working for some, and by increasing the deficit, which is clearly a drag on the economy.
Extending the tax cuts by two years won’t change business behavior. Temporary tax cuts don’t have the same effect as permanent tax cuts. No one hires permanent employees based on temporary windfall money.
The social security tax cut only applies to the employees’ half, so it doesn’t lower the cost of employing someone. This was the only cut that had the potential of incentivizing business to hire more people, but they blew it. It’s also a tax cut aimed at only people who are currently employed, which makes any multiplier from it smaller than if the money went to truly idle resources.
But this is typical of how fiscal ‘compromise’ works in Washington. It’s like when a $70 billion dollar bill comes out of the House, and the Senate says it’s too expensive and produces a $50 billion version of the bill. So the two sides go into reconciliation to ‘compromise’ - and produce a $90 billion dollar bill. It happens all the time.
All that said, I don’t understand the complaint from the people who say more stimulus is needed. This is certainly a more effective stimulus overall than an equivalent amount of new spending would have been - the latest research is finding that tax cuts are more stimulative than spending in most cases. Now, I know that extending the cuts won’t provide additional stimulus, but it will prevent anti-stimulative pressure that would have swamped a spending bill. In other words, it’s more effective to leave tax rates where they are than to raise taxes by $50 billion to pay for a $50 billion fiscal stimulus.
From the Republican’s standpoint, this deal only makes sense if the negotiation included Obama dropping plans for another fiscal stimulus. But from the Democrat’s standpoint, that would make the deal even worse.
At least it’s better than allowing a major tax hike and blowing the money on fiscal stimulus. If that’s what the Republicans avoided, then good on them. But I suspect that’s not the case, and they were just single-mindedly willing to sign onto anything that prevented a tax increase.
Welfare could be considered redistribution, the rest are payments for services rendered. Who benefits the most from those services? IMHOthe people who’s wealth is increasing.
I understand this is not a cut and dried issue of benefits and responsibilities, but it is very clear that the country as a whole has not paid it’s bills, and at the same time the tax burden has shifted toward lower income levels. This discussion can get way off track, so I’ll concede that the question of who owes the most is not resolved. But there is no doubt that ownership of assets in this country is shifting towards the wealthiest, and IMHO there is no evidence it is a result of greater production or effort by the beneficiaries, as opposed to manipulation of the system. Profit is not a virtue, it is an incentive to work harder, and the hardest working are profiting less right now.