How will Obama v. Democrats v. Republican Battle Play Out?

[helpme2010]

I am loving the other threads about unemployment extensions, but since the extensions and the tax cuts for everyone hasn't passed yet, we get to watch a wild battle play out in the media.

At first I was all for this compromise, just assuming (ass out of u and me) that President Obama had bargained for a fair deal, only to find that he caved on pretty much everything except unemployment extensions for 13 months for some folks, but not others.

Now I want the battle to go forward at least until some fair provisions are included for everyone that needs help. Hopefully not going overboard and busting our deficit to even higher levels. I'm not sure I'm ready to be a citizen of the United States of China yet either!

[HHM]

What I don't like is the underlying assumption that taxes should be higher. Everyone refers to this issue as "extending or canceling" the Bush Tax Cuts. The real question, is "why raise taxes." It is a every interesting play on language and reveals bias and mind set. So, when someone says, we should "end the Bush tax Cuts", the underlying assumption is that taxes should be higher for some reason. But why? I'd rather see huge slashes in spending then see taxes go up. But no one has the political will, and maybe even the American people are not ready for the Austerity needed to balance the budget.

[msm859]

What I don't like is the underlying assumption that taxes should be higher. Everyone refers to this issue as "extending or canceling" the Bush Tax Cuts. The real question, is "why raise taxes." It is a every interesting play on language and reveals bias and mind set. So, when someone says, we should "end the Bush tax Cuts", the underlying assumption is that taxes should be higher for some reason. But why? I'd rather see huge slashes in spending then see taxes go up. But no one has the political will, and maybe even the American people are not ready for the Austerity needed to balance the budget.

I will answer your question, "why raise takes"? First, I actually agree with you that the question is being framed wrong. What we should be asking is at what tax "rates" do we have a balance of generating a sufficient income to run the country and also promote a vibrant economy. Today this should be an easy answer because we have just completed an A-B test. Tax rates under Clinton and tax rates under Bush. One gave us a vibrant economy and a balanced budget the other an economic meltdown. I do understand that there were other contributing factors to the recent economic meltdown. But a major one of them was caused by the double whammy of lowering the tax rates and then starting 2 wars which could not be paid for with the lower income being then generated. The people on this forum probably more than others should understand the consequence of only being able to go so long when your expenses exceed your income. What we should do is go back to the Clinton tax rates. Then when we get back to a balanced budget we should start paying down the deficit. I am all for huge slashes in spending. Let's start with our military empire. A look at history shows that virtually every empire before has been brought to their ultimate demise by their military expanse. At the beginning of the 21st century the United States was the sole economic and military superpower -- no more. We have lost our status as the sole economic power a spiral we will continue to slide down to the point were we will no longer be able to be the sole military superpower. Remember how we won the cold war against Russia? The same is happening to us -- except it is a self inflicted wound. Actually their should be a discussion about a surtax to pay for these wars -- which would also have a side benefit of maybe having a serious conversation of whether we should still be engaged in the conflict. Finally, what is also missing from the conversation is that the ONLY way we are going to get a recovery in this economy is to stop the housing foreclosures. A real HAMP program might have done some good. Instead for now we are going to go through this long torturous journey to someday reach bottom on the housing market at which time we will hopefully see a recovering economy. One I fear may be dragged down by the ever exploding deficit and debt. That is why we now need to let ALL of the Bush tax "rates" expire and go back to the ones that worked under Clinton.

[helpme2010]

I have to admit, there is a massive increase in financial levels between the extremely wealthy people and extremely poor people. Almost biblical percentage differences. I think MSM has a good idea and that would be different tax rates based on different income levels, and a calculation based on what is needed to reduce the deficit and begin to make the economy grow again. I did like the levels Clinton set and it did seem to work well (there may be other factors as well which may have contributed). Bush policies did a lot of damage.

I think I ask myself sometimes, how much is too much. I understand we aren't running a socialistic society, but when the wealthy benefit at the expense of the poor and are bending rules and unfairly enriching themselves, when is there some justice for the majority of the people in this country, and when do we actually look out for the poor.

I only imagine if Obama hadn't demanded the 20 billion from BP for cleanup costs for example and that republican jerk and others in the senate who wanted to give them a pass saying to force them to pay this is blackmail and it will disincentivize other oil companies from wanting to do business with us. This is that same B.S. about not wanting to disincentivize corporations or the wealthy because they won't hire more people or spend money and it will hurt the poor. This argument is unfair to most of the country, the country we live in, the United Corporations of America.

[LadyInTheRed]

Everyone refers to this issue as "extending or canceling" the Bush Tax Cuts.

People refer to "extending" Bush Tax Cuts, because that is exactly what is being proposed. The cuts expire December 31 unless they are extended. Taxes are currently set to be at a certain rates as of Jan 1. If nothing is done, nobody has increased any taxes above what they are already set to be based on legislation passed years ago.

[HHM]

People refer to "extending" Bush Tax Cuts, because that is exactly what is being proposed. The cuts expire December 31 unless they are extended. Taxes are currently set to be at a certain rates as of Jan 1. If nothing is done, nobody has increased any taxes above what they are already set to be based on legislation passed years ago.

I get that, but the overall point is still, why should taxes be higher?

We throw around words like "fair share" or whatnot, but no one really defines it. I am not really sure how the wealthy "benefit" at the "expense" of the poor. It is not as if the government MADE wealthy people wealthy. Income stratification, very wealthy, very poor, happens EVERYWHERE. Even in the poorest of poor countries, even in the most tyrannical regimes, there are those that make significant more money than the vast population. The thing is, all I ever here is that the rich should be taxed, because they rich. That makes no sense. The "real" problem is that the government simply spends too much. For what it is worth, the deficit commission got it right, it knows what everyone else knows, that cuts in spending are required, you cannot sustainably tax our way out of the problem. The tax base is shrinking, and the burdens on the "untouchable" programs are increasing.

If you want an eye opener, start tracking what is withheld from your pay check each month, just like you track groceries etc. (Quicken makes this easy with its enter paystub option), then you can track your withholding, medicare, SS etc.

My income tax withholding, medicare and social security withholding each month is more than my mortgage, car payment and groceries (combined). My paycheck withholding is my largest monthly expense and I have my withholding set so I break even on taxes. There is just something wrong with that. And that doesn't even include state taxes and sales tax.

I am not so sure the underlying problem with the economy is the foreclosure issue, that is more of a byproduct of unemployment. As this process has unfolded, my view on the foreclosure issues has evolved. The reality is, most people would have still lost their home even with modifications. The problem is the housing market is on a slow bleed and it is dragging down everything else. What we probably need is a real estate blood bath, let's tear off the bandaid, flood the market with the shadow inventory and just get it over with. The only people that benefited from HAMP were the banks. (and the less than 10% that got modifications).

[helpmeout]

What I don't like is the underlying assumption that taxes should be higher. Everyone refers to this issue as "extending or canceling" the Bush Tax Cuts. The real question, is "why raise taxes." It is a every interesting play on language and reveals bias and mind set. So, when someone says, we should "end the Bush tax Cuts", the underlying assumption is that taxes should be higher for some reason. But why? I'd rather see huge slashes in spending then see taxes go up. But no one has the political will, and maybe even the American people are not ready for the Austerity needed to balance the budget.

But they are Bush tax cuts. And had he done it correctly (which would have meant compromise for the guy who got in front of the UN and stated "You are either with us or against us"), he wouldn't have had to do reconciliation to get them through. Essentially, if these expire, they will be the Bush tax raise becuase he never learned to compromise.

I would much rather see taxes go up than a child go without food. Or a place to live. I wouldn't have a problem with significantly slashing the pay of Congress, the Senate and the President, though. And making them pay more for their benefits.

[dh7448]

The thing that most people seem to forget is the economy only really started to tank the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. The years after 9-11 were some of the best years ever. Unemployment was below 5%, people seem to forget that. The economy was growing. Then something happened in 2006. Anyone remember? The Democrats took over Congress. Starting in 2006, the market dropped, the housing market started to criash. Bush actually tried to get Congress to rein in Freddie and Fannie, but the Democrats refused. Barney Frank and his buddies said they were fine. They weren't. That being said, I think most of our representatives are crooks and only out for themselves.

As far as taxes go, people really need to stop with the "rich against poor" retoric. The rich got that way by acting a certain way. The poor stay that way by acting the same way. Think about this. That "rich" guy who owns a small business will see his taxes increase. That is less money for his business which means he can't grow his business. Which means he can't hire more. The "rich" people you want to pay more taxes are the same ones who will be giving you a job!

[helpmeout]

The thing that most people seem to forget is the economy only really started to tank the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. The years after 9-11 were some of the best years ever. Unemployment was below 5%, people seem to forget that. The economy was growing. Then something happened in 2006. Anyone remember? The Democrats took over Congress. Starting in 2006, the market dropped, the housing market started to criash. Bush actually tried to get Congress to rein in Freddie and Fannie, but the Democrats refused. Barney Frank and his buddies said they were fine. They weren't. That being said, I think most of our representatives are crooks and only out for themselves.

As far as taxes go, people really need to stop with the "rich against poor" retoric. The rich got that way by acting a certain way. The poor stay that way by acting the same way. Think about this. That "rich" guy who owns a small business will see his taxes increase. That is less money for his business which means he can't grow his business. Which means he can't hire more. The "rich" people you want to pay more taxes are the same ones who will be giving you a job!

It started to tank because of Bush's policies. And his spending sure didn't help. Do I think that Democrats share in the blame? Yes, but the Republicans shoulder more of the blame. Tax cuts really don't increase jobs, all they do is increase deficits.

[frogger]

It really doesn't matter. All the entire lot of them are doing is playing a shell game in order to keep the sheeple distracted so they won't see just how broke and corrupt our country really is.

[helpme2010]

It really doesn't matter. All the entire lot of them are doing is playing a shell game in order to keep the sheeple distracted so they won't see just how broke and corrupt our country really is.

I agree with frogger (and you are bringing back memories of that game to me). I actually supported the idea of Bush tax cuts back a decade ago, but assumed like many that the economy would continue to grow and be able to support them, but now it's a different world. Just like bk changes the way we have to think and spend, so does a major recession.

I keep seeing additional items coming out of the compromise that is going to kill our nation, including the estate tax moving from 1 million to 5 million for exemption, then from 55% down to 35%. They estimate another trillion tacked to the budget. I am all for people passing an inheritance to their children, but at what price. If you are watching the news about the EU planning on tripling the cost of education in 2012, just another of many bad expenses that will be coming our way. Add to that people will have to work longer years, social security will continue to be cut, it's going to get worse and worse, with the poor suffering the most.

[helpme2010]

By the way, I want to thank all of you for a professional exchange of ideas, including when we may have disagreements with each other. I end up taking some ideas from some of you that come from the other side of the debate and I feel like some on the other side see a perspective from my side.

I truly wish we could get our government to act like this. I kind of wish we really didn't have political parties and everyone could just vote based on what they believe was right for the country and not based on supporting a party line.

[msm859]

The thing that most people seem to forget is the economy only really started to tank the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. The years after 9-11 were some of the best years ever. Unemployment was below 5%, people seem to forget that. The economy was growing. Then something happened in 2006. Anyone remember? The Democrats took over Congress. Starting in 2006, the market dropped, the housing market started to criash. Bush actually tried to get Congress to rein in Freddie and Fannie, but the Democrats refused. Barney Frank and his buddies said they were fine. They weren't. That being said, I think most of our representatives are crooks and only out for themselves.

As far as taxes go, people really need to stop with the "rich against poor" retoric. The rich got that way by acting a certain way. The poor stay that way by acting the same way. Think about this. That "rich" guy who owns a small business will see his taxes increase. That is less money for his business which means he can't grow his business. Which means he can't hire more. The "rich" people you want to pay more taxes are the same ones who will be giving you a job!

Not sure how you can say we had a great economy - with record deficits. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US...us-1960present. And tell me exactly what law did the democrats pass that contributed to the problem after 2006?

[HHM]

Not sure how you can say we had a great economy - with record deficits. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US...us-1960present. And tell me exactly what law did the democrats pass that contributed to the problem after 2006?

To be fair, having deficits and measuring the growth of the economy are different things. The economy was actually quite good from 2002-2006, the deficits only kept it from being better. Deficits are not a good a thing, but in point of fact, the economy was doing very well notwithstanding, unemployment was below 6% and and things were doing quite well.

[jacko]

Oh stop the BS.. The nation was running up huge deficits after Bush took office when he cut taxes, signed Medicaid Part D into law and expanded the defense/intelligence budget by three fold over the years.

We need to start paying for the services again.

The thing that most people seem to forget is the economy only really started to tank the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. The years after 9-11 were some of the best years ever. Unemployment was below 5%, people seem to forget that. The economy was growing. Then something happened in 2006. Anyone remember? The Democrats took over Congress. Starting in 2006, the market dropped, the housing market started to criash. Bush actually tried to get Congress to rein in Freddie and Fannie, but the Democrats refused. Barney Frank and his buddies said they were fine. They weren't. That being said, I think most of our representatives are crooks and only out for themselves.

As far as taxes go, people really need to stop with the "rich against poor" retoric. The rich got that way by acting a certain way. The poor stay that way by acting the same way. Think about this. That "rich" guy who owns a small business will see his taxes increase. That is less money for his business which means he can't grow his business. Which means he can't hire more. The "rich" people you want to pay more taxes are the same ones who will be giving you a job!