Romney’s Economic Plan Is The Bush Program, Just Updated
But you knew that, right? A Romney spokeperson was on a radio program (apparently this is part of their Hispanic outreach) and was asked by the host about Romney’s economic program. This is what she said (this is about 1min, 45 long):
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kDi72STXTM ]
(this is about 1min, 45 long)
Yes, you heard that. Romney’s plan is the Bush program only updated. Don’t know why it needed to be updated, because that last plan damn near killed us all. Don’t know why they think that people want to go back to the BushCo era, either. Then again, the business of pillaging your treasury to send the funds to your friends is pretty much the GOP Platform.
We don’t have to “go back”… we have been wallowing in Bush policies for twelve years now. Who the hell can I vote for who will finally drive a stake in the heart of the Bush economic policies?
The Bush economic plan is now the default policy for both parties. When today’s Democrats boast about being “centrist” they are talking about their support for Bush economic policies. Just go listen to any random Democrat talking about putting more capital into the hands of business. Oh yeah, now it’s “small business.”
At least we are mostly out of Iraq though; that’s something. And we have a string of moral victories on the social liberal side. But the Bush economic plan is still mostly in place. And nobody is credibly running against it.
The only thing that will rid us of the devastating Bush economic plan is a Presidential veto of the inevitable bill to extend the Bush tax cuts. The only thing. Full expiration.
Any attempt at a “deal” will just put the game in play on the Senate floor. Mischief will happen, deals will be cut, and the rich will win and the rest of us will lose once again – with no ten-year sunset this time.
Full expiration. Pay no attention to pragmatic centrist Democrats shedding crocodile tears over the hostages. I’d much rather expire all the tax cuts and fight for the hostages next year with right on our side.
That ship has sailed Sisyphus. A veto would be treated as a tax increase by Republicans, the media and many Democrats. Care to join us in reality? You seem smart so I’d be eager to hear a potential plan b.
“A veto would be treated as a tax increase by Republicans”
LOL… Republicans treat everything Democrats do as a tax increase. Obama cut more taxes than Bush and they are already running against Obama as a big taxer. And since when did you get so afraid of being called a liberal? Raising taxes on the rich has popular support; it’s about time Democrats took ownership of it instead of spending our time showing how much we love the Bush plan.
Anyway, if Obama, Biden, and Reid can’t delay a tax vote until after the election they should just pack up and leave now.
Plan B sucks. Plan B is to roll the dice in the Senate for the economic plan – and the floor in the Senate tilts to the right. Eighty senators just voted for the Bush economic plan; how the hell do you expect to do better now? Odds are what comes out will be even worse than the Bush plan.
I’ll put you down as one vote for Bush.
Unfortunately for puck and his persistently revisionist history, the Bush economic plan is the logical extension of Reagan policies that re-oriented government priorities to businesses and rich people and away from building and supporting a middle class. If you were paying any attention at all, the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not on the table and never have been. Obama still says he wants to preserve those cuts for people making less than $250K. Following your advise, we would have *right* on our side, but a whole lot of people would not have their unemployment benefits. But then, it is amazingly easy to be *right* when someone else bears the risks.
Keep pushing that rock Puck. I get that living in reality is not everyone’s strong suit.
“Obama still says he wants to preserve those cuts for people making less than $250K.”
Good, then Obama should focus on winning the House and ask Nancy Pelosi to introduce that bill as the first bill in the new session next year. After apologizing to her profusely for failing to support that same bill in 2010, thereby making this whole mess necessary in 2012.
“But then, it is amazingly easy to be *right* when someone else bears the risks.”
How do you know I won’t be on unemployment next year? Or yourself for that matter?
Personally, I find the risk of an interminable jobless recovery, with Republicans constantly beating us over the head with the deficit, to be far more damaging than any temporary reduction in the flow of government checks. Which hasn’t even happened yet and you are already cringing in terror and offering terms of surrender. Maybe a strong posture now on Obama’s part will avert your longed-for hostage crisis, who knows?
If we want to end the Bush policies we have to finally decouple the tax cuts for the rich from the middle class cuts – that won’t happen without ripping off the Band-Aid. Otherwise it’s BushCo as far as the eye can see, for our children and grandchildren.
Sure, with full expiration Republicans will moan about tax increases, and the crocodile tears will flow from pragmadems. But in a few short months Democrats can be challenging Repubs to pass middle-class cuts only and expansion of UI and other safety net benefits. That’s the fight Democrats need to be fighting, and we need to stop running from it.
Puck, you made the mortal sin of reminding people that Obama continued Bush’s tax policy without the mandatory 5 paragraph disclaimer detailing why you understand that it is the Republicans fault.
“But then, it is amazingly easy to be *right* when someone else bears the risks.”
He’s asking for all the tax cuts to expire…. including his own. I dont see how that is someone else bearing the risk. Im for it as well. Raise my taxes. I’ll have something like 10 dollars less in every paycheck…. and before you jump up my bum for being a 1%er, trust me.. I don’t make that much. Some are willing to sacrifice the same percentage of their income as they are asking everyone else. SOCIALISM
How do you know I won’t be on unemployment next year? Or yourself for that matter?
I don’t know that. But what I do know is that in January 2011 there were millions of us very much unemployed and with benefits running out. Obama making the deal for 2 more years of Bush tax cuts got an extension of unemployment benefits to those who needed it and ALSO got money in the pockets of working and middle class people who would spend it. *Right* on your side would have never gotten any of those things. And *right* on your side still doesn’t get you a Congress that will vote for the right stuff, either.
He’s asking for all the tax cuts to expire…. including his own. I dont see how that is someone else bearing the risk.
Are you freakin’ kidding me? Go back and reread what I wrote. The people who would have immediately lived with the risks were all of the people whose unemployment benefits would have run out if the tax deal wasn’t made. It is THOSE people that puck is so ready to always throw under the bus. Very progressive, I’m sure.
“And *right* on your side still doesn’t get you a Congress that will vote for the right stuff, either.”
Which is why it is up to the President, which was my point. Anything that gets through Congress will be even worse than what we have now, and Obama shouldn’t sign it. And Democrats should’t support in in the name of “getting something done,” because in this case doing nothing is better than doing something.
The Republican House will not introduce a tax reform bill worth passing. If a tax reform package is sent to the Senate and Obama doesn’t veto it, it’s game over, Bush wins again. And don’t tell me then that the President didn’t have a choice, because I just laid out his choices here today that don’t even require Congress.
“Obama making the deal for 2 more years of Bush tax cuts got an extension of unemployment benefits to those who needed it and ALSO got money in the pockets of working and middle class people who would spend it.”
Cassandra, the Republicans haven’t even named their hostages yet. Perhaps you would like to help them select some hostages and write up their ransom note for them? You seem to be even more enthusiastic about hostages than Republicans are.
With tax reform, the only way to win is not to play.
@puck, I’m really trying not to name call here or disparage your comment utterly, but that commnet is ______.
Which is why it is up to the President, which was my point.
Do you seriously not know that it is Congress who can authorize spending and revenue generation? Sheesh. It doesn’t matter what the President wants if there isn’t a Congress who will vote for it.
And this:
You seem to be even more enthusiastic about hostages than Republicans are.
Is more of your usual dishonesty. Is it really that hard for you to admit that some people WHO REALLY NEEDED IT actually got helped by Obama’s deal?
But you are now On Notice. From here on out you no longer get to make holier than thou judgments on the progressive bona fides of anyone. Because it is plain that you aren’t especially progressive, you just want to beat up Republicans. And just beating up Republicans may be satisfying as heck, but it isn’t going to get you much in terms of policy or legislation right now.
On Notice.
Is there a new rule that commenters aren’t allowed to give back as good as they get? I at least respect Cassandra for engaging on her own posts.
“isn’t going to get you much in terms of policy or legislation right now.”
Which is fine. Gridlock is our best hope for tax reform right now. It is encouraging that no tax reform package has yet been introduced; each passing day makes it less likely one will succeed.
What House-introduced economic plan would you like to see in play on the Senate floor?
Gridlock isn’t so great if you need to make sure that millions of unemployed people get extended benefits.
A big part of getting politicians on your side is the ability to create a psychological win with the voters. Most of the public waits to see who is “perceived” as the winner in a debate. If our side isn’t celebrating the stimulus, tax deals and the ACA then we shouldn’t be surprised when lower info voters pick up on our negativity and add it to the GOP’s and end up confused – instead of excited and wanting more.
Don’t dismiss this. It’s how the Bush Tax Cuts became popular among people who didn’t really benefit from it. Our team isn’t made up of team players.
Take the ACA. It doesn’t poll well because we helped the “Obamacare sucks” narrative. Yet, when you poll individual provisions of the bill you find they are very popular.
We really do underestimate the spin – and positive spin gets you more support. More support = more progressive legislation.
Unless you think that the progressives strategy of trash talking the ACA led to support for single payer. (I crack myself up) What it led to was greater numbers against the ACA.
Sheesh, we didn’t even get separated out from Republicans… unless I kept missing all the poll citing talking heads saying, “You know, many people against the ACA actually wanted more. So these people who say they don’t support it, really want it to go farther.” Yeah, that happened.
If Obama is going to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, extending the jobless recovery and income inequality for generations – I sure hope he gets something better than a year’s worth of UI extension.
i wonder if this will put me “on notice” gee willakers i sure hope not!
It’s not very progressive to constantly negotiate with terrorists either. The repukes hold hostages because they know the Dems will cave on their demands. The UI would not have stopped immediately. there would be enough time for outrage to grow and pressure to mount on the republicans. They are like children…. or honey badgers… You have to at some point call their bluff.
You talk as if people getting UI dont understand the debate. As if they can comprehend who their enemy really is. As if they want the entire economy to collapse under the weight of totally unnecessary tax cuts for $300 a week. One of the big problems i find with progressives is they tend to assume the people they are trying to help are single issue voters who only care about one immediate thing and are blind to the “big picture”.
The UI extension is like a nuclear bomb that the GOP has and here is the thing about a nuke……. the terrorist who has it is only powerful while he still has it… once he tries to use it, it’s no longer there. We dont know what would have happened in reaction to UI expiring…. a week later, due to overwhelming public pressure, it could have been extended…. AFTER the Bush tax cuts were killed. BUT we still have them, and the Republicans still have their Nuke. Talk about going for short term gains and a long term loss. Do you know what will happen if Mitt wins? the BTC will be expanded and UI will be eliminated….. but at least you got to be a pure progressive right?
On notice for awesomeness!!!
If we aren’t taking steps to create jobs, it isn’t UI – it’s de facto long-term welfare. As long as the rich are paying 15% tax or less, all forms of stimulus money runs right into their pockets leaving no jobs behind. Expiring all the tax cuts would be a greater kindness to the unemployed than allowing the jobless recovery to continue.
The deficit is a bigger threat to social benefits than Republicans.
And after full expiration, I’m pretty sure we’d win the fight for emergency benefits AND middle class tax cuts. But even if we didn’t win at first, we’d fall back to the Clinton economic plan, which was not too shabby.
It’s time to stand up, stop running scared, and rid ourselves of the Bush curse. Congress not required, spin not required – it’s all up to Obama now. The only way to win is not to play.
Puck, the idea of trying to create jobs in order to eliminate the need for unemployment insurance is a RIGHT WING TEABAGGER HITLER idea. DUH.
Take a deep breath and look at the situation. Seriously:
What we have now is Democrats giving Republicans nearly everything they asked for on economic policy, out of a crippling fear that Republicans will force the nation to… go back to the Clinton economic plan that created broad prosperity and balanced the budget. Scary tax increases, ooohhh!
Yet somehow, many of us Democrats have convinced ourselves that the way to help the middle-class and poor is to go along with Republicans and their Bush economic policies.
Have we lost our friggin’ minds?
Oh, i agree with you completely, Puck. This “true progressive” bullshit is as dumb as “pure conservative” bullshit.
Here’s a little story about how i beat my bully….. I had a pretty bad bully in early high school. I was afraid of this kid for the longest time and he knew it. He had all the power. One day, I had enough and stood up to him….. which really pissed him off… because i did it in a crowd. He got a couple of punches in, which i was prepared for… and it hurt as bad as i was afraid it would.. but i made sure we were in a place where the school administration could be there quickly (which they were)…. I also didnt hit back. Just protected my head. The result? other people stopped messing with me (as much) and i never saw that prick again. Lucky for me, it was his strike 3. I think the republicans are on strike 2 with the american people…. unfortunately, with bullies, no one does anything while they are making threats and demands. they only respond when they act. We have to force them to act so we can rid ourselves of these slimeballs forever and REALLY help people.
You talk as if people getting UI dont understand the debate.
Actually, I don’t talk as though people on unemployment don’t understand the debate. I talk as though the people on unemployment may have more urgent priorities than this phoney *debate*. And apparently I’m the only one who thinks that making sure that the millions of people who needed that extension got it was a vital piece of government business. But once again, it takes our so-called progressives to show how they aren’t especially interested in progressive policy or a rational safety net, just in making sure they get to see republicans bleed on cable TV. So yeah, you’re On Notice too, SB.
The two of you should be grateful, really, that the Bush Tax Cuts did get extended. I mean, if it weren’t for this, you couldn’t get your perpetual wank of what ifs, counterfactuals, and revisionist history on.
THIS COMMENT IS MADE WHILE ON NOTICE BY THE POWERFUL CASSANDRA_M ALL BLESSINGS OF PROGRESSIVE PURITY BE UNTO CASSANDRA_M
What exactly is “on notice”? Are you gonna ban people from the blog for arguing a point you don’t totally agree with? (no im against STUPID AND POOPY points) how mature and enlightened of you.
Colbert puts people “on notice” as a part of hin uninformed, bull-headed persona… is that who you are trying to emulate? I care so little about what YOU, cassandra_m, thinks of my “progressive cred” that I wont even finnish telling you how little i ca……
im more progressive than you! nanny nanny boo boo! That’s a great tactic. make a litmus test for progressivism it will really bring a lot of people to the cause.
Do you actually read here or are you just vomiting up whatever BS comes to the top of your head? This is what On Notice means:
But you are now On Notice. From here on out you no longer get to make holier than thou judgments on the progressive bona fides of anyone. Because it is plain that you aren’t especially progressive, you just want to beat up Republicans. And just beating up Republicans may be satisfying as heck, but it isn’t going to get you much in terms of policy or legislation right now.
On Notice.
Since *you* and puck here are the ones here insisting on some kind of tax cuts purity, I’m calling you out on the fact that you want all of the purity at the expense of a lot of other people. I don’t much care what you post — but the more progressive than thou posts end now. Since you’ve made common cause with the GOP who would throw people getting badly needed unemployment right under the bus.
why do i let myself get dragged down by trolls….it is such a bad habit and feeding trolls only makes them stronger.. goodness gracious. well, here goes.
that last comment was just vomit off the top of my head since you have shown you just like to brow-beat. must get boring without a-1.
I didnt say anything about more progressive than thou other than pointing out YOUR more progressive than thou stance.. (hint hint… once you tell someone they arent being a progressive, you have taken that position) .. talk about being rubber and glue… or not really reading posts. you’re the biggest offender here, but you have that big powerful contributor title (the real 1%) i’ve been pretty consistent about fighting for grey-areas and compromise, so your charge that im a purist wont hold up to any kind of scrutiny…. at all. you are now using a fox news line of attack. Be proud of yourself!
I never even mentioned UI until you somehow knew more about what goes on im head than i do and told me i want people to starve. I didnt know that about myself, see i volunteer to feed people quite often, but now i guess i have to stop doing that since i like people suffering.
Beating up republicans isnt just satisfying. It’s necessary to the future of the nation. We have to end this republican party so a decent one can emerge. It’s for the benefit of everyone….. but i guess that makes me what now? a tealefter on notice with a hitleresque Beckian affinity? any other buzz words you’d like to use instead of an actual civil debate?
I’ve never been “more progressive than thou”. Which goes directly to my point. I have to live with your bullshit labels of conservadems or whatever else you want to throw out instead of arguing a point. I’m pointing out that I would not throw people who needed help under the bus for some ideological point. So in this thing, I’m not the purist.
There’s no browbeating. There’s just you not able to hold an argument. If you can’t hang, then don’t engage. But you or puck posting up more BS about someone or another’s progressive bona fides will be treated as trolling.
LOL, and I saw what you did there, trying to get your victim on for UI discussion. And I guess I’m not supposed to remember that you sought to lecture me on the fact that the proletariat wants to be thrown under the bus for the larger question:
ou talk as if people getting UI dont understand the debate. As if they can comprehend who their enemy really is. As if they want the entire economy to collapse under the weight of totally unnecessary tax cuts for $300 a week. One of the big problems i find with progressives is they tend to assume the people they are trying to help are single issue voters who only care about one immediate thing and are blind to the “big picture”.
🙄
The only thing I’m noticing is that you guys like to regulate speech.
Cassandra, your post is about Romney wanting to “go back” to the Bush program, but now you speak of “tax cut purity.”
What distinction to you see between the Bush program and the Bush tax cuts? Tax policy is basically the heart of any economic plan, isn’t it? Or do you see some wiggle room where we can somehow keep the Bush tax cuts while moving to a non-Bush economic plan?
My take is that as long as we have the Bush tax cuts, we have the Bush economic plan. We’re just doing the same thing and expecting different results.
I speak of “tax cut purity” because this is your stance. That’s where that comes from.
And I’m on record all over this blog on letting the tax cuts expire, so you can halt this new bit of revisionism right in its tracks.
ok look. there is a very real possibility that we’ll meet later this evening, and id like to not be scared of you.
I will say right now that all of my snarky bullshit was out of line if you can do me the favor of listening to (well, really reading) my explanation without making the gigantic leap of telling me i want people harmed. That’s just bad form and it gives ammo to scum like QP.
(i tried this with a1 once and it really didnt work…. A1 read probably 2 sentences then called me a nazi, i think you’re better than that clown)
first of all, I dont think you are a right wing fascist state nut job. I PERSONALLY… and we are all entitled to our opinions…… don’t see much of a difference between giving up all our freedoms post-9/11 out of a need to feel safer, and giving in to the GOP’s demands and hostage taking. To ME…not to everyone, and that’s OK!!!…… Giving up something that is important to you in response to a threat from a bully is the same no matter what the players are. Now it’s UI…. what could it be next? how far will they go? I dont know the answer and neither to you…. neither to THEY. They are driven my escalation and bumper-sticker rhetoric, so it’s not gonna be rational. I think we can both agree on that. That is the essence of my “call their bluff” stance. Their bully wont end until someone stands up to them and forces them to end it. Only those of us who have suffered bullying can really understand that. If you can show that this is the last time the GOP will do this, then I will change my position based on the new perceived reality, but let’s be honest here…. they are going to do it again.
I hope that meant something to you other than potential fodder for an epic blogger take-down.
As far as my views on UI….. im for anything that lowers the number of people on UI BY GIVING THEM A JOB. Not kicking people off, but making it less and less necessary. raising taxes to generate revenue that can be used to hire government workers will certainly accomplish part of that goal.
man it is exhausting being civil.
“I would not throw people who needed help under the bus for some ideological point.”
It’s not an ideological point, it’s a tactical point. If you reward hostage-takers, you give them incentive to take more hostages. Why would Republican behavior change when it gets them so much of what they want?
“I mean, if it weren’t for this, you couldn’t get your perpetual wank of what ifs, counterfactuals, and revisionist history on.”
Only one sort of person never engages these practices — the Dr. Pangloss sort, who proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Sound like anyone here?
I don’t know, are you standing up as that person?
The hostage -takers got a two year reprieve AND there was additional stimulus (another hostage!) in multiple forms that got approved. More stimulus than tax breaks that got approved.
The Panglossian thing here is the insistence that there is nothing else besides tax cuts and the refusal to let them go. There were two sets of hostages in this negotiation and both of them got a slightly more comfy room waiting for another round of negotiations. And there isn’t a single thing counterfactual about that.
“And I’m on record all over this blog on letting the tax cuts expire”
So what do you see as the path to get there?
I’ve laid out the case that negotiations will leave us worse off than we are now. And that stimulus money is running out the tax cut hole in the bucket.
you dont really think the GOP is going to uphold their end of the bargain do you? hell no! there will be more hostages. (i know , i know… more what if’s from a ____insert witty insult here) it will never stop until they are stood up to.
“There were two sets of hostages in this negotiation and both of them got a slightly more comfy room waiting for another round of negotiations.”
ok good. that’s a good and fair and valid point…. but they are still hostages, the terrorists are still winning. This would actually be a politically perfect time to call their bluff…. IF UI isnt extended in august and the democrats can run on it, there wont be enough republicans left to oppose a permanent extension and a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts in Jan
just one more though on this…. dont you think it’s unfair to keep letting these people be used as a pawns? imagine the stress ever few months being villanized by some, and martyred by others, all the while not knowing if you are going to have an income when all the bumperstickering is over.
The GOP didn’t make any bargain other than voting for stimulus measures in conjunction with a two year extension of tax cuts.
Ironically, with veto power over tax cuts for the rich, Democrats hold the most powerful hostage of all. There is nothing Republicans want more. Ever wonder why? Because tax policy is the determinant of distribution of wealth in our economy. Not by confiscation, but by incentives to hire and invest.
Personally there is nothing I would trade expiration for. Any spending concession we might win from Republicans would be temporary and would be repealed soon anyway if we don’t get some more revenue and jobs.
how do you think the GOP will vote when the tax cuts come up again? What hostage will they be able to take this time? you havent made the mistake of thinking they have any honor or morals have you?
Well, right now we are on a path toward expiration. That won’t change until somebody introduces a tax reform bill. It will most likely be Republicans introducing a straight-up bill to make the Bush tax cuts permanent (which at this point they can call a “compromise” – LOL), and they’ll send it to the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is the danger point.
Assuming Reid allows a vote, Obama has multiple choices at that point:
The tough-love choice is for Obama to issue a veto threat, but promise to sign a middle-class-cuts-only bill – which would have been the winning strategy in 2010, and would win in 2012.
Or, Reid could manage a filibuster and send it back to the House with Bowles Simpson style tax reforms, possibly still including the permanent Bush tax cuts.
The worst case is if the Senate enters negotiations for permanent extension in exchange for some type of temporary spending concessions. I guess that is where the hostages-to-be-named-later will make their appearance – and that is also why Democrats should keep the bills clean and not get into negotiations tied to hostages.
If Democrats negotiate, we lose.
“The Panglossian thing here is the insistence that there is nothing else besides tax cuts and the refusal to let them go.”
You still don’t get it. This is a disagreement about tactics, nothing more. I think a lot of people get annoyed that you never have a negative word to say about the tactics of this administration, when most of us could recite a litany.
And I would get annoyed that you read what you want. Just so that you can have your bad guys.
You can’t even have a discussion re: tactics if you can’t even acknowledge the complete set of tactics AND goals on the table. So enjoy whatever you are doing, but it doesn’t have much to do with tactics.
@c “Is it really that hard for you to admit that some people WHO REALLY NEEDED IT actually got helped by Obama’s deal?”
The bottom line for me is that there were multiple deals that Obama could have made. I believe that he could have help those same people needing help AND raised much needed tax revenues.
Obama played as though his hand was weak when, in fact, it was not.
My opinion is that the Bush tax cuts is the wrong jungle, regardless of whether one is making progress (depending on whether you are for or against them).
Taxation is about paying for services, infrastructure and security. We all have a keen interest in those things and yet most of the payment for those things comes from “income” tax. So those that have no “income” “salary” “paycheck” “hour wage” etc do not actually pay for those things. Or at least do not pay at the rate of those who earn wages. What I think we should do, at least for starters is to agree that because there are many ways of earning money, that taxation policy should address sources of earning money by redefining “income.” Hedge fund traders who have no salary earn a significant amount of money. Corporations (which the SC said are people now) also earn a significant amount of money. What we should do is to start by equalizing what get’s taxed by redefining what is income. And no I am no proposing that corporations pay social security payroll taxes, etc.
Once we set the field relatively level, then we can determine what the rates should be and whether there is a rationale for cuts, increases, or status quo. In my simplistic view, if you make a buck, you owe a piece to the nation. I don’t care how you made that dollar whether through an hourly wage or investing or whatever. I guess I am sort of a flat taxer but not a flat “income” tax as it is now defined. Until we as a nation fix this fundamental flaw, tax cut arguments are arguing around the margins. Silk purse, sow’s ear and all that.
One advantage to full expiration is that capital gains tax resets to 20%, while dividends reset to being treated as regular income at 39%. This is much bigger than any tax increase that could be won by politics or negotiations, and it focuses on the right taxes. And the differential on dividends will reset business behavior toward hiring and investment.
Cutting dividends to 15% was an abomination.
@D “Until we as a nation fix this fundamental flaw, tax cut arguments are arguing around the margins.”
But the ONLY way we can get self interested politicians to pass this sort of thing, is to make all the other options worse for them. That’s why we have to let the tax cuts expire… otherwise there is insufficient pressure to actually fix things.
Then letting it expire is something that should be considered as not necessarily bad for the nation. I am sure there are some studies (which I have not bothered to research) regarding the next impact of the tax cuts on those who are in the middle to lower end of the economic spectrum. It is not necessary to study the high end because I have no doubt there was no impact. In fact, I am..sort of at the low end of the high end and I can tell you that the cuts had no discernable affect on what I did or bought or anything else.
But for others, perhaps the cuts made a difference – like putting food on the table difference. I’m of the opinion that it did not make a discernable difference but as I said, I haven’t seen any data. So if that is the case, then the cuts are really mostly for show and maybe expiration would make sense.
@D “But for others, perhaps the cuts made a difference – like putting food on the table difference.”
Yes, the unemployed. But I see them as more as hostages in the deal.
There are more Republican unemployed than there are unemployed Dems, so UI should be a bipartisan issue with bipartisan support.
But the Repubs are basically saying: “Give me my tax cuts, or I’ll beat up my son here.”
It’s a bluff. Call them on it.