Can someone explain to me how GOP is saving face with this current UI/tax cuts deal?

[halik]

The whole premise I've been hearing is that you don't want to extend unemployment because it's financed via deficit spending. Ok, valid argument.

How does including tax cuts make the above go away? You can't really do a 180 on the argument above without losing credibility... Tea party folk, any ideas?

 

[HendrixFan]

I can only guess they are counting on voters being stupid and forgetting all about it come the next election cycle. That and they already know the deficit spending is pretty much a free blank check to use whenever they want.

 

[matt0611]

It doesn't make it go away. Things need to be cut to make the deficit go away.

Also, we can reverse the question, they're adding a ton more tax cuts for ethanol and other lobbyist groups to entice the democrats that are opposed to it.
Don't many of them bitch that we can't "afford" the tax cuts to the "rich"? But we're adding tax cuts for ethanol and thats ok?

 

[JS80]

The whole premise I've been hearing is that you don't want to extend unemployment because it's financed via deficit spending. Ok, valid argument.

How does including tax cuts make the above go away? You can't really do a 180 on the argument above without losing credibility... Tea party folk, any ideas?

Raising income tax rates may slow the economy even further and reduce tax receipts in the immediate and the future.

 

[hal2kilo]

Dr. Frank Luntz is excellent at framing things for the low information voters?

 

[nageov3t]

more voters are paying taxes than are collecting unemployment?

 

[Craig234]

At least some Republicans are trying to make the ridiculous claim that if it lowers taxes, it's so important and useful that it just shouldn't count as adding to the deficit.

These are the only Republicans I've seen who are talking about this.

See this Rachel Maddow Clip for samples of their doing this, at 4:30 in the clip.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#40614154

 

[CallMeJoe]

It's Republican Dogma since at least the Reagan administration that lower tax rates always pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

 

[matt0611]

It's Republican Dogma since at least the Reagan administration that lower tax rates always pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Meh, I don't want tax cuts to pay for themselves. I want government spending cuts to pay for tax cuts.

Total federal government revenue has gone up almost every single year anyway (I think since 1980 its gone down a grand total of 1 year), so I don't know why people are bitching about tax cuts so much.

 

[Craig234]

Total federal government revenue has gone up almost every single year anyway (I think since 1980 its gone down a grand total of 1 year), so I don't know why people are bitching about tax cuts so much.

Welcome to planet Earth.

Since you're new to the planet, a couple reasons.

For one, we have a crisis with the increasing concentration of wealth that threatens the political stability of our society, and tax cuts for the rich will increase the problem.

For another, we have a big problem with our huge deficit, and while we need to have one now, we need to pick spending that helps the society, not makes problems worse.

 

[matt0611]

Welcome to planet Earth.

Since you're new to the planet, a couple reasons.

For one, we have a crisis with the increasing concentration of wealth that threatens the political stability of our society, and tax cuts for the rich will increase the problem.

For another, we have a big problem with our huge deficit, and while we need to have one now, we need to pick spending that helps the society, not makes problems worse.

So we need to tax people even more because their wealth is getting too concentrated? How bout we abolish income taxes except for top earners? Could you go for that? Thats how it used to be...

 

[Craig234]

So we need to tax people even more because their wealth is getting too concentrated? How bout we abolish income taxes except for top earners? Could you go for that? Thats how it used to be...

A person's wealth isn't too concentrated, wealth in society is too concentrated.

There are reasons for taxes to be paid by many people. If we taxed the top 0.1% at 100% of their income, it wouldn't begin to raise the needed revenues, anyway.

But taxing them too little causes big problems.

As far as old taxes, the income tax was only very briefly aimed 'only at the rich', and it replaced pretty much all federal taxes coming from tariffs.

 

[matt0611]

A person's wealth isn't too concentrated, wealth in society is too concentrated.

There are reasons for taxes to be paid by many people. If we taxed the top 0.1% at 100% of their income, it wouldn't begin to raise the needed revenues, anyway.

But taxing them too little causes big problems.

As far as old taxes, the income tax was only very briefly aimed 'only at the rich', and it replaced pretty much all federal taxes coming from tariffs.

The revenue that is needed to meet our current expenditures are absurd. Thats my point.

 

[Zebo]

How does including tax cuts make the above go away?

It doesnt. They are dishonest liars and foolish Americans buy it

I'm starting to hope they get it. Every city needs to look like Detroit as stupid as Americans are.

No opportunity, people willing to shoot you in the face for $1, and rich behind walls in the burbs. Black people have had to deal with disfranchisement for years it's gonna be funny seeing white people have to deal with same. Maybe then y'all will buy a clue.

 

[Craig234]

It doesnt. They are dishonest liars and foolish Americans buy it

I'm starting to hope they get it. Every city needs to look like Detroit as stupid as Americans are.

No opportunity, people willing to shoot you in the face for $1, and rich behind walls in the burbs. Black people have had to deal with disfranchisement for years it's gonna be funny seeing white people have to deal with same. Maybe then y'all will buy a clue.

What you SAID was, "I don't know why people are bitching about tax cuts so much." And then you ignored the answer and changed the subject.

 

[cubby1223]

The whole premise I've been hearing is that you don't want to extend unemployment because it's financed via deficit spending. Ok, valid argument.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats support or not support things for one reason, but usually officially state another reason in order to persuade the other side. They oppose extending unemployment because they don't believe it is what is needed to help the country grow. They state the financing argument to reduce the debate down to an unopposeable position - hence "OK, valid argument."

When it comes to most things politics, I usually disagree with the Democrats' reasons for support, and I usually disagree with the Republicans' reasons for disapproval of the exact same issue.

 

[Siddhartha]

The whole premise I've been hearing is that you don't want to extend unemployment because it's financed via deficit spending. Ok, valid argument.

How does including tax cuts make the above go away? You can't really do a 180 on the argument above without losing credibility... Tea party folk, any ideas?

Look up what the GOP has been doing and wanting to do since 1984.

 

[ProfJohn]

Simple:

1. Keeping the tax cuts in place is good for the economy.

2. Extending unemployment benefits is good for the economy as well.

Most of the other stuff is BS and should be left out. The Republicans are probably better to wait till Jan when they have more control and then pass a 'clean' bill that extends the cuts and the benefits without any pork.

 

[ProfJohn]

Welcome to planet Earth.

Since you're new to the planet, a couple reasons.

For one, we have a crisis with the increasing concentration of wealth that threatens the political stability of our society, and tax cuts for the rich will increase the problem.

For another, we have a big problem with our huge deficit, and while we need to have one now, we need to pick spending that helps the society, not makes problems worse.

1. Bill Clinton RAISED taxes.

2. The rich did better under Bill Clinton than under Reagan or Bush.

Why?? Once you figure out that why then you will understand that raising taxes on the rich for the purpose of trying to diminish the wealth concentration will not work.

 

[ccbadd]

Simple:

1. Keeping the tax cuts in place is good for the economy.

2. Extending unemployment benefits is good for the economy as well.

Most of the other stuff is BS and should be left out. The Republicans are probably better to wait till Jan when they have more control and then pass a 'clean' bill that extends the cuts and the benefits without any pork.

I think you are close, but if this does pass, it frees the House to focus on spending cuts. It's all a game and if the tax issue is settled it can no longer be used as a bargaining chip. I don't think they will revisit the tax rate right away, they will focus on spending. The next time taxes come up, I believe they will try to replace the whole tax system (simplified not flat or fair tax).

I still get amused every time these liberals talk about other peoples money as if it really belonged to the government. By the way, the only tax CUTS in the deal are payroll not individual. Keeping taxes as they are is NOT a CUT.

 

[werepossum]

The whole premise I've been hearing is that you don't want to extend unemployment because it's financed via deficit spending. Ok, valid argument.

How does including tax cuts make the above go away? You can't really do a 180 on the argument above without losing credibility... Tea party folk, any ideas?

The Democrats are in control of both chambers of Congress as well as the White House. This bill is a compromise - Republicans got some of what they wanted and some of what they did not want, Democrats got some of what they wanted and some of what they did not want. It has nothing to do with saving face, it's just dealing with the reality of government.

Had the Pubbies waited until January they could have gotten more of what they want and less of what they do not want, but the American people would have been struck with hikes in the tax rates in the mean time, and Democrats would remain the party with more power. Republican leadership saw this compromise as best for the country and good enough for themselves.

 

[Thump553]

Far as I'm concerned Obama made two main promises in the 2008 election-health care reform and repeal the tax cut for the rich. This way they get Obama to cave in on a central promise, almost certainly forever. You think Congress is going to let any tax cuts expire in 2012, an election year.

The bill will become an expensive budget busting boondoggle as well. Good programs that need funding in the future will die because we continue to subsidize converting food to fuel.

Considering how much Obama gave away here I predict the GOP is going to walk all over him for the next two years.

 

[classy]

Its a total joke and Obama has no balls. These motherfrackers have done what they also have done, looked at for themselves at the complete expense of others. If OB had focused on things like this instead of the bs healthcare he might have actually made a true difference. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost more than the total bailout. What is even more of joke is if these cuts have already been in place and they still have not created one job, what is going to change by continuing them? Nothing. Vote no and force the republicans to actually answer for something. Or Obama just fvcking quit.

 

[HendrixFan]

1. Bill Clinton RAISED taxes.

2. The rich did better under Bill Clinton than under Reagan or Bush.

Why?? Once you figure out that why then you will understand that raising taxes on the rich for the purpose of trying to diminish the wealth concentration will not work.

Everyone did better under Clinton. Median household income for blacks went up 32% from 1992 to 2000. Median household income for hispanics went up 24% in that time.

Why?? Once you figure out that why then you will understand that raising taxes on the rich for the purpose of trying to diminish the wealth concentration will work.

 

[Craig234]

The Democrats are in control of both chambers of Congress as well as the White House. This bill is a compromise - Republicans got some of what they wanted and some of what they did not want, Democrats got some of what they wanted and some of what they did not want. It has nothing to do with saving face, it's just dealing with the reality of government.

Had the Pubbies waited until January they could have gotten more of what they want and less of what they do not want, but the American people would have been struck with hikes in the tax rates in the mean time, and Democrats would remain the party with more power. Republican leadership saw this compromise as best for the country and good enough for themselves.

The right wants votes by running on a crazy right-wing ideology that sounds good to some nuts, but is terrible policy.

So they have it both ways - since Reagan, they have talked the talk to get votes of 'small government', while spending big for political benefactors for that support.

And now, they hold things like unemployment that's great for the economy, or even Reagan-started START policy for nuclear safety, hostage for tax cuts for the rich - but it's not as if they don't want to both get the vote of the nuts who like to see them have radical positions, while really wanting these things - that have overwhelming public support - passed so they aren't destroyed by them in the election.

Imagine the mother of a child telling the father, "if you don't let me win on which movie we see, I'll kidnap and withhold food from our child until you do!"

It's not as if she really wants the child to starve - she's just immoral and reckless in being willing to do so to win a battle, just like Republicans.

Suddenly, the Democrats have to have basic things for the good of the country be something that counts for 'their agenda' in negotiations.

So, the mother 'concedes' for their child to be fed as a concession to the father, in exchange for concessions from him. It's crazy, but that's how Republicans are.