What he has shown to me is that having to risk people or risk losing, he’ll risk losing. That counts for all lot with me. Now, maybe some of you are right, maybe the Pubbies would have caved. But what if they didn’t? What if they are just as fucked up as I think they are? Who pays the freight for that?
That sound? That was hundreds of thousands of people breathing a sigh of relief, people I know, people you know. And if they are not our people, who’s are they? Who else in the world has a responsibility to them, if not us?
Sometimes to do good, you have to eat some shit. OK, here’s my spoon, here’s my grin…
And there’s a couple other litlle goodies in that package that we don’t have to fight seperately over. Givin’ them bitches tax cuts, bitches love tax cuts!
As for the rich, they don’t use pencils, so they don’t know that they have erasers. And the Wall is patient…
By allowing Republicans to drive the debt higher with their irresponsible taxcuts, Obama IS risking people, just not right now.
If he caves, we’ll all regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives.
Too much debt will cripple the nation, and the future of all Americans will be grimmer. Sure, you may think that potentiality doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, relative to the present troubles of 2.5 million. But I think you’re wrong, and I think caving to extortionists is bad policy. What will they demand the NEXT time unemployment benefits come up, and the economy is still in the crapper? Are you prepared to pay again and again?
Then how would you explain this thread? What you originally said in that thread was crap, which you later sort of droolingly acknowledged. Yet, you were pelted with ad hominem attacks throughout. Perhaps ad hominem attacks directed at you are nothing more than open admissions that we can’t expect you to understand anything more nuanced than that.
If the tax cut to the rich is a jinned up problem that does not exist, why will the Repubs fight to the death and talk about shutting the government down to maintain them. I understand you are lost when the subject arises, but we are not. The whole tax cut should expire. The Republican deficit has to be faced. Now would be good.
The people whose opinions I’m relying on are some of the brightest economists in the country. The Republicans are relying on known failed economic policies of the Reagan era. That makes them guilty as charged.
No, that is demonstrably untrue. They now oppose measures they themselves supported just a couple of years ago. For example, Obamacare is very similar to the proposal by John McCain during the election. They just want Obama and the Democrats to fail so they can get back in power. They care nothing about the good of the country.
It’s true that never in a million years would I vote for ANY republican for any office other than, possibly, County Gongfermor…and then allow him all he can eat.
Given that, if Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012, I will hold my nose and vote for the S.O.B.
BUT…only after having worked my ass off for and voting for, in the primary election, some Democrat with a spine.
Franken, Kucinich, Grayson, Feinbold. Hillary? Sure. Any Democrat with balls. I’ve had it with Obama.
Exactly. None of this stuff is even controversial from an economic perspective. Wealthy people have a lower propensity to spend than poor people, so given a choice between a billion dollar tax cut to the rich and a billion dollar incentive to poor people the latter will provide more of a stimulus. We can measure this stuff, it’s not an opinion.
Now if we had sufficient demand, not enough capital to expand production, and were facing inflation then we might choose the tax cut. But no one thinks that is the case we are in now,
Really? The news stories state that the compromise consisted of extending the tax cuts for two years in exchange for extending unemployment befits. What an I missing? Link
The fact that, as already stated in the thread, the Republicans wouldn’t have actually let the unemployment benefits collapse. It wouldn’t have been in their best interest to do so.
Heck, even the people who watch Fox for their news know that the Republicans were the ones refusing to pass anything. It would have clearly been their fault if it unemployment went away. Even they are smart enough to know that the Democrats would play that to the hilt.
And, 'luci, remind me to play Poker with you. And if you ever need a loan, I’d be happy to help out.
I think that one is evidence for a different conclusion; I’m guessing the GOP never wanted to pass health-insurance reform in the first place, and only ever floated proposals they had no intention of legislating. After all, remember their reply to Clinton’s plan? They didn’t merely attack “Hillarycare” with gusto; they kept proposing alternative measures – and, upon gaining majorities in the House and Senate, they spent the rest of the '90s not sending anything of the sort up for Clinton’s signature, and then spent most of the '00s likewise not sending anything up for Bush’s signature.
If a Repub thinks he can win a straight Dem-proposal-versus-status-quo debate, then he’ll just point at how things are. If he thinks he can’t quite win that debate, then he’ll merely say “we need change, just not that change” – and then broadly outline possible alternatives, which he may or may not actually give a crap about.
Look, if the Dems nominate anyone but Obama for the Presidential race in 2012 for any reason other than that Obama is dead or dying, this is morally equivalent to handing the White House over to the Republicans.
You will vote for him. You know it, and so does he.
Approval ratings for politicians who aren’t currently running don’t mean much, but BHO’s ratings among independents has gone up lately. Not that overall, his approval ratings are anything to brag about, but still…
There is no such thing as a “tax cut for the rich”. That’s a liberal talking point squawked by liberal parrots right and left.
I personally favor abolishing the income tax completely. Repeal the 16th Amendment and replace the income tax with the Fair Tax. As a very distant second place and second-rate alternative, go to a flat rate tax; no deductions, no exemption, you pay 15% of your income and that’s it.
Can you explain to me the logic (?) behind “soaking the rich”? The only foundation I can see for it is class envy. Someone through initiative and effort invites a new widget or a better mousetrap and starts making money doing it. Their reward? Jealous people steal that money through taxation and redistribute it to “the poor”. Why should people be penalized for being successful?
One of these days, you might realize that an ad hominem attack is nothing more than an open admission that what originally said was correct. Thank you once again for proving me correct.
Nope. Also part of the deal was that the unemployment benefits don’t have to be paid for out of the unused TARP funds. I agree that the Republicans probably would have not let the benefits expire, but we don’t know that for sure. It’s just speculation.