As a way to, you know, deal with the deficit.
-
So, are those projections reliable?
-
What would be the economic effect?
-
Any other reason to do it or not to do it?
-
Wait, didn’t we go over all this last November or something?!
He only wants to end the Bush tax cuts on “the rich”. The so-called Bush tax cuts included tax cuts for all tax payers, not just “the rich”.
“Dealing with the deficit” RIGHT NOW is a bad idea. It’s exactly the sort of thing that could stifle the fragile recovery.
However, since the Republicans have decided that dealing with the deficit RIGHT NOW is more important than getting the economy back on track, taking more money from the wealthiest Americans is the best way to do it. They can certainly afford it more than the poor or the middle class. And it helps avoid the job losses that will follow any abrupt cut in government spending.
Whatever – I think “Obama has called for tax increases on higher-income Americans” makes it clear enough what he’s proposing.
Yeah, it’s like it’s 1937 all over again. Lazy, selfish people never learn.
Simply refusing to renew the Bush tax cuts, and doing nothing else either, would, by this analysis, make the deficit disappear altogether. This one too.
It isn’t reckless spending or entitlements that got us here, it’s pretty much just Bush’s tax cuts. Well, and his off-budget wars.
After a decade, wouldn’t you think those tax cuts would provide the jobs and stimulus Bush promised us they would? After he inherited a budget in surplus, and an economy about which the Fed chair had to warn about “irrational exuberance”? Can we go back to that, please?
The Republicans have decided that getting back in power is more important than anything else, the economy getting back on track would severely cripple their chances of that. Once they are in charge all this silly talk about the deficit will stop and they’ll just go back to letting the rich loot the country.
I would call that an astonishingly cynical prediction, if it were not exactly what the Republicans did last time they were in charge. And the time before that. (But not the time before that, say what you like about Nixon . . .)
Daily Kos is a radical leftist source, if Newsmax in the right is unreliable so is this.
[/QUOTE]
The Bush years from '03 to '07 were a time of great prosperity but back then liberals were complaining about Iraq.
You must be joking. Job creation sucked, and wages were stagnant. The Bush years sounded the death knell of the middle class. You would know that if you had been there.
That would only apply if both Newsmax and Daily Kos regularly pushed misinformation.
This isn’t a true thing. Why did you say it?
As John Mace pointed out, he’s not really letting the Bush Tax Cuts™ expire, but only letting some of them do so. Personally, I think it’s a red herring ( the kind you can try to use to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with), but I guess we’ll see. If they do it, it will be interesting to see how much the government actually is able to realize in new taxes, and how much is just fantasy numbers based on unrealistic projections of what they will rake in.
-XT
Unemployment steadily decline from 2003 to '07, Dow Jones peaked in '07, and Bush actively pushed for an agency to regulate Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Didn’t Congress and the White House just agree to extend/not repeal the tax cuts, earlier this year?
Irrelevant. They didn’t produce the analysis; they just cite it. Where’s your cite to refute the facts in it?
I agree with you. Even with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, the tax rates on the rich are still far too low.
Tell me again why he agreed to extend them last time, and only now has found a fiscally responsible backbone?
I’m sure his thoughts of the upcoming re-election bid has nothing to do with it (recover base, begin class warfare).
Not particularly. Extreme disgust at the right doesn’t make one an extreme leftist.
The two are unrelated. Newsmax is unreliable because they publish lies. Daily Kos is not a factor in that. Similarly, Daily Kos’s reliability stands or falls on its own merits and has nothing to do with Newsmax. If Newsmax got out of the right-wing propaganda business and went legit, would that magically make Daily Kos more reliable? How would that work?
Those years most certainly weren’t prosperous, and it wasn’t liberals who complained about Iraq, it was anyone who wasn’t an apologist for Bush. Invading countries under false pretenses and having its citizens tortured isn’t a particularly conservative value.
I’m reminded of the way Bill O’Reilly labelled those who didn’t support the scum Bush as “the far left” or “extreeeeeeeeme leftists” for some reason. Can’t imagine why.
Because the Republicans were holding up a necessary treaty and a slew of other necessary legislation in order to get it.
You should look up news stories from the time, someone who follows politics would be expected to know that.
A laughable assessment. The Republicans have been pushing class warfare since Obama took office. That’s why they held up a necessary treaty in order to force tax cuts for the richest Americans.
Yes, but all they did was kick the can down the road. Those tax cuts were set to expire, and they extended the expiration date. Courageous lot, our Congresscritters.