Republican anti-Obama 'tea party' protests

252 posts in this topic

 

Of course, if the Democrats actually have the desire for another stimulus (remember Krugman suggested $1 trillion was in order), then by default the Republicans would look fiscally responsible by comparison in opposing said stimulus proposal.

True, but nobody except the pundits are using the "S" word. Keeping in mind that any elected official actually saying "stimulus" out loud would have been the kiss of death in midterm-election season.

 

Depending on where you stand, Krugman is either the angel or the devil sitting on the shoulders of Democrats, whispering in their ears and getting stubbornly ignored.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't seen it, the New York Times posted a DIY cut-the-federal-deficit activity. Object of the game: to cut $1.345 trillion from the 2030 deficit.

 

 

The ultimate goal is to help you judge the deficit proposals that are now emerging. Do you think they cut spending too much and should raise taxes more? Or the reverse? Are they too aggressive or too meek on military spending? How will they affect income inequality? How might they help or hurt economic growth?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejoice! A bipartisan political compromise for extending all the Bush tax cuts may be in the works!

 

The plan:

 

 

A deal on a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax rates could also be linked to renewal of unemployment benefits for 2 million Americans about to lose them, a senior Republican in the House of Representatives said.

 

Representative Pete Sessions, a Republican in leadership, said he could back extending jobless benefits, favored by Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in exchange for an extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, including for the wealthiest groups.

It's just heart-warming to me to see the two parties pulling together like this, and so soon after a divisive political midterm election season.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, cinzia, here is a deficit reduction plan that will excite eurovol: Schakowsky Deficit Reduction Plan. There's even a mini-stimulus, so you might like it too. If you don't like that one, well here is another one: Rivlin-Domenicei Deficit Reduction Plan

 

Sounds like there is a long ways to go on the mooted compromise. Like it or not, it looks like the Republicans may have a little bit of leverage and I doubt the'll go for less than a two year extension of the full gamut of the Bush tax cuts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conquistador, this plan is being discussed (or you might say "floated"), in public, by the majority and minority leaders.

 

I was being silly about the "heartwarming" bit. This plan has a good chance of making it to a vote, and yet it really doesn't leave anyone but Democrats with egg on their faces for being spendthrift again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do get the Democrats to go along with a 2 or 3 year extension (I don't think they can get a 3 year, BTW), I think the Republicans will be pleased. They will have used the unemployment benefits as a bargaining chip to get what they really wanted, although, in fairness, the Democrats just carped about the 200K earners getting their tax cuts extended to rev up their base rather than it really being a line in the sand for them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, and maybe the Republicans aren't really opposed to extending unemployment benefits, either. But it took all of 8 days for fiscal "austerity" to go out the window completely, didn't it? And let's keep in mind:

 

 

Putting off the pain will be much harder to stomach in the long run than taking some castor oil now and in the next decade.

 

Anyway, why not get the Republicans to give up extending Bush tax cuts for Americans over $250K "in exchange for" extending unemployment benefits? Why is the proposal both/and?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe, and maybe the Republicans aren't really opposed to extending unemployment benefits, either. But it took all of 8 days for fiscal "austerity" to go out the window completely, didn't it? And let's keep in mind:

 

See my above remarks regarding marketing. Don't forget the Republicans campaigned on extending the tax cuts, so if it's austerity they want, they want it from elsewhere in the budget.

 

Anyway, let's talk numbers: how much will the extension of unemployment benefits cost? The extension of the tax cuts for under 250K is bipartisan, and that portion is about 80% of the total cost of extending the tax cuts.

 

As for taking castor oil, cinzia, note the broader context in which I posted that (the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction proposal), and also that I said the Bush tax cuts should go in their entirety. That means that merely not extending the tax cuts for the over 250K households is not anywhere near the full extent of "taking castor oil", so you can't campaign on that alone. After all, you're balking at a potential gas tax increase, which is part of the castor oil.

 

 

Anyway, why not get the Republicans to give up extending Bush tax cuts for Americans over $250K "in exchange for" extending unemployment benefits? Why is the proposal both/and?

The Democrats really want the benefits extension so how can they get both? They have to give on the over 250K so the Republicans relent on the unemployment benefits, which they are doing to get leverage on the full tax cut extension.

 

According to Bloomberg, it doesn't look like the deal cinzia posted about above is anywhere near completion: Efforts to Extend Bush Era Tax Cuts .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, let's talk numbers: how much will the extension of unemployment benefits cost?

billion for a one-year extension.

 

 

The extension of the tax cuts for under 250K is bipartisan, and that portion is about 80% of the total cost of extending the tax cuts.

The working figure for extending tax cuts for the families that earn over $250K is $120 billion for two years. Again, nobody is proposing NOT extending the tax cuts to middle-income Americans, so by your own logic (why argue about what's not going to happen, if I understand you correctly), it's useless to bring it up.

 

 

The Democrats really want the benefits extension so how can they get both? They have to give on the over 250K so the Republicans relent on the unemployment benefits, which they are doing to get leverage on the full tax cut extension.

But is this really some kind of reasonable compromise when the result would be exactly what neither party supposedly wants? That is, adding $185 billion to the deficit? Doesn't it seem to you that they're working in the wrong direction entirely?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The working figure for extending tax cuts for the families that earn over $250K is $120 billion for two years. Again, nobody is proposing NOT extending the tax cuts to middle-income Americans, so by your own logic (why argue about what's not going to happen, if I understand you correctly), it's useless to bring it up.

 

Quite to the contrary- you've made the extension of the tax cuts for the >250K households a litmus test of fiscal austerity, when in absolute terms its cost is, AFAIK, estimated to be one-fourth or so that of the tax cuts for the <250K households. That's why it has to be brought up, because the real litmus test of fiscal austerity, IMHO, is whether someone is willing to let the entire passel of Bush tax cuts expire.

 

I'd be curious to know how many Congressional Democrats were arguing for tax cuts solely for the <200K households back in the 2001-2003 period (I use 200 instead of 250 because of inflation since the early part of the decade).

 

 

But is this really some kind of reasonable compromise when the result would be exactly what neither party supposedly wants? That is, adding $185 billion to the deficit? Doesn't it seem to you that they're working in the wrong direction entirely?

The need for logrolling (and this would be a good example of it), is one reason why federal spending is as high as it is. Surely you agree that Democrats aren't likely to agree with Republicans on any potential budget cuts the latter might want to propose? But again, marketing, marketing, marketing. If the deal comes to pass, the Democrats probably don't want to stress to their base that they voted to extend tax cuts on >250K households, now do they?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know much about the budgets (yet) but using a credit card for the two wars contributed far more to the deficit than the tax cuts. Anyone want to dispute that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moctoj, what's done is done, though.

 

The question is how to dig out of it? Using a magic wand to go back to 2003 and make the wars go away isn't an option, but clearly, none of our politicians are serious about tackling the problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now