Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Bush tax cut debate dooms deal to cut deficit

Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:47 AM EST
politics, us, cuts, tax-cuts, bush-tax-cuts, supercommittee
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>Supercommittee member Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., walks amid reporters as the deficit reduction panel ends in failure, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)</p>

Supercommittee member Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., walks amid reporters as the deficit reduction panel ends in failure, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — A long-running war between Democrats and Republicans over Bush-era tax cuts doomed the debt supercommittee's chances of reaching a deal. Efforts to overhaul the tax code may await the same fate as both parties gear up to make taxes a central issue in the 2012 elections.

Republicans insisted during the supercommittee negotiations that curbing tax breaks to raise revenues be coupled with guarantees that all the Bush tax cuts would continue beyond 2012. The tax cuts, which affect families at every income level, were enacted under President George W. Bush and were extended through 2012 under President Barack Obama.

Republicans for years have bashed Democrats as eager to raise taxes — a theme they will employ often in next year's elections — so they weren't about to agree to a tax hike unless they also could take credit for preventing a huge tax increase scheduled to take effect in 2013.

Democrats countered that the supercommittee was created to reduce the budget deficit, not add to it by extending tax cuts. Most Democrats, including Obama, want to extend the Bush tax cuts only to individuals making less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000.

"We simply could not overcome the Republican insistence on making tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a member of the supercommittee. "This was simply doctrine for some of our Republican colleagues, even as many worked very hard in good faith to find a better way forward."

Another member of the supercommittee, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said, "It is deeply regrettable that my Democrat colleagues could not see their way to addressing these much-needed reforms without at least $1 trillion in job-killing tax increases on families and employers."

Extending all the Bush tax cuts, including provisions to spare millions of middle-class families from paying the alternative minimum tax, would add $3.9 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Democratic plan would add about $3.1 trillion to the deficit over the same period and make the wealthiest Americans pay about $800 billion more in taxes.

The supercommittee was formed to come up with a package that reduces government borrowing by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. But with a Wednesday deadline approaching, the committee's co-chairs conceded failure Monday.

Democrats had said they would accept significant cuts to benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but only if Republicans would agree to tax increases. Despite Republicans' aversion to tax increases, a growing number of GOP lawmakers said they would consider higher taxes if they were coupled with significant spending cuts.

Other Republicans wanted even more political cover: a guarantee that all the Bush tax cuts would be made permanent.

"It's not easy during this hard economic time to go back and justify any kind of tax increase," Rep. Wally Herger of California, a senior Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said while talks were still ongoing. "But I think if it's going to be justified, this is the one exception that maybe you could use to justify it."

At one point, supercommittee member Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., proposed a tax overhaul package that Republicans said would raise about $290 billion in additional revenue over the next decade but lock in all of the Bush tax cuts.

Democrats, however, never seriously considered an agreement to continue the Bush tax cuts for high earners. Agreeing to extend them would make it harder for Democrats to accuse Republicans of supporting policies that favor the wealthy, a staple of Democratic political campaigns.

"If anybody in our party votes for that, they will have a real problem for themselves in the next election," said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

The debate has played out even as lawmakers, presidential candidates and interest groups from across the political spectrum have called on Congress to simplify the tax code. The two tax-writing committees in Congress, the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the Finance Committee in the Senate, have held numerous hearings on tax reform. Their respective chairmen, Camp and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., both served on the supercommittee.

But tax reform won't happen until Congress resolves the dispute over the Bush tax cuts, said Howard Gleckman, a fellow at the Urban Institute and editor of the blog TaxVox.

"You can't do tax reform unless you agree in advance how much revenue you want to raise," Gleckman said. "The problem is, there is simply no consensus at all on what the revenue goal is."

Tax reform is already a hot topic among Republican presidential hopefuls. Businessman Herman Cain has gotten a lot of attention for his 9-9-9 plan, which would impose a 9 percent national sales tax, a 9 percent income tax and a 9 percent business tax.

The election could go a long way toward deciding the fate of tax reform, unless it results in more divided government, said Clint Stretch, a tax expert at Deloitte Tax LLP.

"The problem is, the 2012 election might not solve the issue," Stretch said.

Until then, don't look for any movement on the issue, said Dean Zerbe, former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee and now national managing director of Alliantgroup, a tax consulting firm.

"'For this Congress, you might as well send the lilies for tax reform," Zerbe said. "We will not do anything significant on taxes until after the election, and even after that it may take a while."

__

Online:

TaxVox blog: http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Stephen Ohlemacher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (98)
Rixar13

— so they weren't about to agree to a tax hike unless they also could take credit for preventing a huge tax increase scheduled to take effect in 2013.

President Obama is masterful and will veto end around self political interests....

  • 7 votes
#1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:19 PM EST
follow the money

"So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out For The Economy?"

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/permalink/chas-89lpz9

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:26 PM EST
Catch22

— so they weren't about to agree to a tax hike unless they also could take credit for preventing a huge tax increase scheduled to take effect in 2013.

President Obama is masterful and will veto end around self political interests....

That appears to be a statement empty of any meaning at all. What is that supposed to mean exactly? What bills has the President vetoed "around self political interests"?

This is supposed to be a DEFICIT CUTTING agreement!

Extending all the Bush tax cuts, including provisions to spare millions of middle-class families from paying the alternative minimum tax, would add $3.9 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

GOP Plan: Lets cut the deficit by raising revenue by 270 billion in exchange for lowering revenue by 3.9 trillion!

At one point, supercommittee member Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., proposed a tax overhaul package that Republicans said would raise about $290 billion in additional revenue over the next decade but lock in all of the Bush tax cuts.

According to the GOP decreasing revenue and increasing the deficit by over 3.6 Trillion is a prequisit for reducing the defict.

  • 8 votes
#1.2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:03 PM EST
Glen-1484791

The title of this article is slanted at best. Both sides are to blame: The Dems will not back down on their traditional spending practices and the GOP will not back down on their "extreme" tax cuts.

Some of the Bush tax cuts have to remain in some form: Adjustment to inheritance tax for inflation (not no tax, but 3.5M) and adjustment to AMT for middle class. There is no escape from personal income on AMT folks in its present form or otherwise, so their ain't no boogyman rich that we can tax to get out of this mess.

15% on dividends is too low, it should be back to ordinary income and loopholes for corps must be fixed.

In case you have not guessed, I am a middle class independent voter who pays his taxes, personal and on my small business. I am not against raising taxes so long as there are budget cuts equal to that is well.

I like the line in the article that basically outlines that neither party has a plan that does not add to the deficit:

>>>Extending all the Bush tax cuts, including provisions to spare millions of middle-class families from paying the alternative minimum tax, would add $3.9 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Democratic plan would add about $3.1 trillion to the deficit over the same period and make the wealthiest Americans pay about $800 billion more in taxes.

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:14 PM EST
mairslm

All I can say is Bull---- they had no intentions of striking a deal

Do they really care? Why should they ? They line their pockets day and night with insider bull and let Americans flip the bill.

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:29 PM EST
Catch22

The title of this article is slanted at best.

How exactly?

The Dems will not back down on their traditional spending practices and the GOP will not back down on their "extreme" tax cuts.

The problem with your hypthesis is that who knows what you imagine the phrase "traditional spending practices" to be. The Democrats were willing to cut hundreds of billions in spending.

The GOPs position on tax cuts whether you call extreme or not was clear:
They refused to negotiate unless the taxes were decreased by trillions of dollars below where they are currently scheduled to be in law. As noted in the article the tax cuts they are demanding be made permanent are estimated to cost 3.9 trillion. The Super Committee was tasked with reducing the deficit by 1.2 trillion, and the GOP insisted that before we negoatiate anything that we MUST first lower taxes by three times that amount.

Some of the Bush tax cuts have to remain in some form

No they dont have to. America was doing better before them. As it turns out both the Democrats and Republicans want someof the Bush tax cuts. The GOP is insisting that ALL of them be made permanent in return to what they claim is 270 billion in new revenue but is actually mostly gimics and assumptions.

The vast majority of Americans have expresed the view that the deficit should be addressed with BOTH Spending and Revenue.

The Democrats agree, the GOP has insisted on changing the law to decrease revenue by over 3.6 trillion.

  • 7 votes
#1.5 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:30 PM EST
TennisMom2

The GOP continues to do what it does best. They fight like heck for their constituents. The millionaires, billionaires and corporations that depend on more tax cuts and tax rebates, too. Yes, they are a valiant bunch and know how to get it done. They get people who get the short end of the stick to vote for them while they do some obscene things with that 'stick'.

They should look out their windows. People are protesting in the streets. People want to see taxes on the privileged elite increased before grandma gets her meds taken away.

They need to be VOTED OUT in 2012.

  • 6 votes
#1.6 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:36 PM EST
rocinnante

Speaking as a wealthy American (yes I am 1%), I've come to realize that wage taxes don't apply to the wealth, and furthermore, even the capital gains tax doesn't really apply to the wealthy.

Why?

I earn far more money on a capital gains basis than on a wage basis, so I don't care what the wage tax rate is. Wages are for Walmart greeters to worry about.

Further, I can manage how, when, and if I pay capital gains taxes, because there are many ways, legally in the tax code, to avoid paying capital gains.

The bottom line is the wealthy don't really pay taxes. At least not in the sense that the 99% thinks of taxes. I know that might shock some people to hear, but its the truth. And the wealthier you are, the more vehicles and tax loopholes there are for you to avoid ever paying taxes unless you feel some sense of obligation.

  • 8 votes
#1.7 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:51 PM EST
Glen-1484791

Catch...

America was doing better "before" because we were not in a global economy and did not have to compete globally, in addition we simply kept "ignoring" the deficit and raising the ceiling. So you see, we were not doing that well before.

The article should read "This day was long in coming and our system has been flawed for some time." It is ignorant for each of the parties to blame each other.

I guess I will be specific and nail down "extreme" for you: All the tax cuts cannot remain (that is extreme), but some of them must if we are going to survive in the 21st century. Otherwise corporations who have a loophole for deferring profits which are not taxable will continue to invest overseas, and the people in this country who remain here trying to do business and make money will be taxed to death or leave.

We cannot tax our way our way out of this situation. To say so demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the problem. Feel free to read my blog on what is really happening and why tax generating jobs will continue to go overseas so foreign interests will continue to buy our debt and eventually get paid back.

I agree that the GOP should not demand all cuts remain.

  • 2 votes
#1.8 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:01 PM EST
SAtownMytown

I'd like to remind everyone that the only reason why the BTC stayed in '09, was because it was the only way Obama could allow medical for those with pre-existing conditions.

Now that a full 3yrs have past, and the RepubliCONS have done absolutely nothing since the time that those with pre-existing conditions have been permitted to recieve medical, I say let the plan die! :) It's served this country no purpose to keep it now, it will serve no purpose in the future.

The Repugs are claiming the plan for the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes is a job killing plan, has been and always will be a stupid accusation. The major companies/ corporations have BEEN killing jobs. So why not let the smaller businesses get the opportunity to hire more? Those no harm in getting the wealthy to pay taxes as long as the Not-as-Wealthy will create more jobs, so really, who needs the major companies/ corporations? To hell with them. >:)

my question again: NOW ARE YOU ALL READY TO STOP VOTING REPUBLICAN???????

  • 4 votes
#1.9 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:06 PM EST
Glen-1484791

For those of you who missed the point, here it is again, The deficit itself is just a side show, as result of the bigger problem, which no senator or congressman is going to admit:

>>>

FOLKS REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON when it comes to taxes and jobs.

Comments like:"the rich don't create jobs, look at the last ten years. We need great Education and to take care of the Middle Class and Elderly, quite cutting those programs and go after the subsidies to..." and "I'm older now and this does not effect me" clearly demonstrate this. You cannot have social programs (thats what they are)without somehow paying for it, and the businesses championed by the GOP are paying for them in a fashion in which trickle down economics -does not- work.

Actually both the GOP and the DEMS are doing it, and now they are at war with themselves because of outdated ideals, but more likely because I doubt most of the Congressmen themselves understand what is going on, or will not tell you.

This is what has happened: Starting before WWII the Democrats began deficit spending on programs, and in the early 70's the GOP got us off the gold standard and allowed foreign countries to buy the debt so both the DEMS and GOP could have their cake and eat it too. THE GOVERMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEND MORE THAN IT HAS IN THE BANK BECAUSE FOREIGN COUNTRIES (such as opec countries and Iran etc) AND CHINA ARE BUYING THE DEBT. These countries are now the rich special interests that our government is outsourcing our jobs to through corporations and our congressmen are scared to stop. You want government programs, so business has to pay somehow. Taxes do not promote the formation of companies or growth. Social programs do not promote it either. The trouble is that outsourcing of jobs is occurring due to overseas loopholes which Obama promised to stop but has not. He will not do so because in order to fund these programs that you consider essential, he needs the foreign countries to keep investing.

Worse, China cannot simply show up and demand payment back in American dollars. Part of the agreement is that they must do so with the equivalent of American dollars in vested in their own country. Hence we cannot stop US corporations from investing there or China will never get paid back...and not continue to buy our debt.

If you just say "raise taxes" without realizing any of what has just been said, I am certain have always worked for someone else your entire life or at least not sat back and thought about the big picture. You are also fine with putting small companies and family run businesses out of business, and leaving behind the large multinational companies which are causing the problem. Please go off and do some research on what I just said. Both parties are stuck on their ideals and have dug themselves this embrace. We as a country have also done. Fix the deficit spending and foreign interest loopholes and the fair tax burden and employment will follow.

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:11 PM EST
RebootIt

Wages are for Walmart greeters to worry about.

I'm a computer engineer and still have to worry about wage taxes as do other educated and skilled people. What planet do you live on? Everyone should pay their fair share. I'm all for capitalism but this country we live in does not really have a free market so it's not really capitalism.

  • 1 vote
#1.11 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:39 PM EST
Catch22

America was doing better "before" because we were not in a global economy and did not have to compete globally, in addition we simply kept "ignoring" the deficit and raising the ceiling. So you see, we were not doing that well before.

First, you comment has NOTHING to do with your claim that the article is misleading.

Second, I have no idea why you imagine that we were not competing globally in a global economy in the year 2000 or years before that. Your comment about ignoring the deficit is both subjective and not particularly relevant, nor is it even remotely the current President's fault. Meanwhile the GOP plan is to continue to ignore the deficit and give out unaffordable tax breaks. Politicizing the debt ceiling did nothing to address our real problems and is the most direct cause of lowering our credit rating. So again whats your point other than to agree that the GOP is ignoring these issues in their pursuit of more tax giveaways?

The article should read "This day was long in coming and our system has been flawed for some time." It is ignorant for each of the parties to blame each other.

If it were not an article about what it IS about. Then that would make sense. This problem was long in coming, but THIS article isnt about that. This article is about the super committee and the insistance by the GOP that BEFORE we negotiate cutting spending FIRST we have to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. In this particular case, the GOP was insisting on the same policies that put us in this mess. Does this mean that the Democrats are blameless and perfect in all things? Of course not.

I guess I will be specific and nail down "extreme" for you: All the tax cuts cannot remain (that is extreme), but some of them must if we are going to survive in the 21st century. Otherwise corporations who have a loophole for deferring profits which are not taxable will continue to invest overseas, and the people in this country who remain here trying to do business and make money will be taxed to death or leave.

So you actually agree that the title is accurate? What you describe as "extreme" and impossible IS the final position of the GOP and what they describe as compromise. YOu write now "All the tax cuts cannot remain" and the GOP insisted that they be made permanent as a condition for negotiation. Do you really imagine that if the nations tax rates return to where they were in 2001 that this will mean the US cannot survive and that business will be taxed to death!? That is truly nonsense. We can have reasonable arguments about the merits of relative tax cuts but pretending that somehow 2000 tax rates are beyond the threshold of national survival is absurd and without rational basis.

We cannot tax our way our way out of this situation. To say so demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the problem.

I did not say so, so once again what is your point exactly other than to lecture straw men? It is a fact that biggest single causal factor of the change from surplus in 2000 and deficits, are the Bush tax cuts that the GOP is insisting be made permanent before talking about spending cuts.

At the current rates which are near historic lows, cutting taxes INCREASES the deficit. Making the cutting of taxes by 3.9 trillion a prerequisite to talk about spending cuts is putting ideology over reality.

Feel free to read my blog on what is really happening and why tax generating jobs will continue to go overseas so foreign interests will continue to buy our debt and eventually get paid back.

Feel free to engage in rational discussion in this thread, Im not particularly interested in looking for your blog.

  • 5 votes
#1.12 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:17 PM EST
Steve-485394

Catch22, good job, although having discussions here and in any thread at times is extremely difficult. Like the song from Alice's Restaurant, "you can have anything you want at Alice's Restaurant", here on the Vine, so many can be anything they want, but all too often both their vernacular and arguments show us all the different person they claim to be.

We have problems, I would like to hear from those who do have more than their own opinion, and far more from those who have an inkling of what they are speaking about.... meaning credentials, level of education, etc... We need solutions, we need those who do recognize that perhaps, just perhaps, we need those who are willing to listen to the other side and each side give a little.

The idea of raising the AMT is good, all too many middle class taxpayers are now getting hit with it. The Idea of those with greater wealth paying a bit more, and taking those brackets to Ronald Reagan's time, not bad either... The idea of hitting those with incomes above $200K might be raised a bit so as not to hit our small business men and women, and many family farmers, knowing our tax system, I would raise it to $500K single, and $650K married. I would raise the tax on dividends, and would raise the Estate Tax but not eliminate it, perhaps to 2.5 million. We have entitlements than can be adjusted too, perhaps using a system which is regressive(and it already is partially) as one's wealth goes up. Most wealthy people don't care about the same things that ordinary people do... they protect themselves from catastrophic situations, pass wealth onto their wife tax free, have generation skipping trusts, and utilize the stepped up basis in stock and investment transactions...

We offer the same crop subsidies to Corporations that we do to the family farm... And in some cases the family farm is byond huge, it is a Corporation in itself... We allow waste to continue in Medicare, and continue to see our congressmen sell their votes to the highest bidder, aka lobbyists. And the job of a lobbyists is well paid, by all of those companies, or institutions which will profit by your congress enacting laws or putting a project in their backyard.

Now let's talk, come up with some answers, solve some problems, but don't automatically assume that both sides are wrong or for that matter even close to right. Politics is worth millions and the Republicans and the Democrats both know it... only when "we the People, tell them to knock it off, and bring force making them to do so will it work, your vote counts, do what is right for all of America and stop any following to one party or another, do what is right for your country and all of America, not just those at the top who have more money than God, and really don't need any more. They can have more, but let's just take a bit more off of the top, close those loopholes, and bring a system back to one with reality and commonsense.

  • 1 vote
#1.13 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:23 PM EST
rocinnante

rocinnante wrote:

"Wages are for Walmart greeters to worry about."

I'm a computer engineer and still have to worry about wage taxes as do other educated and skilled people. What planet do you live on?

Wages don't matter if you make nearly all of your money through capital gains. Just as a mathematical example, lets say I make $100,000 through wages, and $500,000 through capital gains. I pay, depending on what state I live in, roughly 45-53% tax on the wage, so thats maybe $53,000 dollars. But I also made $500,000 on gains that isn't subject to wage tax, so who cares about wage tax?

If I don't realize the capital gains, then I don't pay tax on the gains this year. And depending on how and when I realize the gains, maybe I never pay tax on the gains at all.

So I made $600,000 dollars and I paid $53,000 dollars, about 9% tax rate. Plus I'm not even a billionaire, billionaires can pay even less, just about zero really.

A Walmart employee makes maybe $25,000 dollars. They pay, depending on what state they live in, 20-25% tax rate, so thats... um... carry the 1... $6250 dollars in taxes. Well over double the tax rate that I pay.

Its sad but true that this is how the tax system works. Someone who barely can pay their rent and feed their children pays a larger fraction of their income to the US government, than I do, and that many millionaires do.

  • 5 votes
#1.14 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:14 AM EST
TennisMom2

There was a segment on CNN showing marchers carrying a sign that said "END THE BUSH TAX CUTS". It's great that the protesters are getting down to specific messages. That is what our so-called representatives need to hear, our specific demands including that one.

Good for them.

  • 4 votes
#1.15 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:02 PM EST
Rixar13

In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years.

follow the money - #1.1

Thanks for the link....

  • 2 votes
#1.16 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:45 PM EST
Reply
waffle

When discussing the Bush tax cuts, it's helpful to remember why they were proposed and under what conditions they were accepted.

Remember, when the Bush tax cuts were proposed, the country was running a vast surplus. Things were relatively good. The idea was promoted as a way of handling the surplus. Instead of paying off the national deficit or investing in the country's infrastructure, we would have a tax cut, vastly slanted at the ultra wealthy, with the idea that all that money in the hands of the ultra wealthy would be invested in corporate expansion.

Even then, the idea was too expensive. The Republican rank and file would not go along with it. The bill was passed through reconciliation, which put a ceiling on the financial damage the bill could cause. In order to make the bill acceptable and not reveal the long term deficit it created, the tax cuts included a sunset provision. Officially, the idea was that politicians would sensibly evaluate the realities of the red hot economy caused by the massive supply side stimulus the tax cut would create and decide to extend them. In reality, the idea was to perpetually extend the tax cuts by accusing anyone who did not want them extended as in favor of raising taxes.

So that's why we're here. The Bush tax cuts were too expensive and too damaging to be simply passed. They included a sunset provision to allow them to be passed through reconciliation and to disguise the long term deficits they created. They were promoted as a policy of good economic times, designed to share the success and extend the good times.

None of these conditions hold today. To talk of extending them is financial irresponsibility beyond the pale. To attempt to tie them into the supercommittee negotiations is a transparent attempt to disguise the Republicans' sabotage of the discussions by refusing to consider any compromise and to hold their promise to the unelected Grover Norquest above their duties to the country.

  • 10 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:28 PM EST
bore-head007

Remember, when the Bush tax cuts were proposed, the country was running a vast surplus

Just imagine if they never were enacted.

We could have paid ahead!

The goal of every American family!

  • 8 votes
#2.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:34 PM EST
Steve-485394

waffle: Not only did the Bush Tax Cuts come as you said during a period of surplus, but the surplus came from many policies enacted during the Clinton Administration.

And, as you said, rather than invest in infrastructure which would benefit both the middle class and those owners of companies given the jobs created for the same task, they chose to give out millions of dollars to Corporations without any, that would be any stipulations on how money should be spent(of coarse we could not infringe on the Corporations right to do what they as an individual thought they should do) no guidelines, just a pep talk about possible use here or there, and what did happen was a mass exodus of plant and equipment out of the US. And to boot, the icing on the cake was, that they then got a tax credit for the investment made, even though it was not made here in the USA.

Of course the rest is history, plants closing all over the USA, workers put out, plants closed, which only helped to fuel the housing bust, as many families no longer had two income workers to pay the mortgage... But not to worry, CEO's and executives got huge bonuses for doing what they did and we all know how they spent and spent and the US economy was just fine, and the Trickle Down effect brought prosperity to all, especially the middle class and the small business men and women of America....yeah right!

We started screwing ourselves with the elimination of the Glass - Stegal Act and the new Grahm Leach Billings Act taking over...all Republicans with a controlling republican congress... by the way, former and really former Republican of 31 years, and retired Investment Banker, so I know just a few things for those willing to argue.

  • 4 votes
#2.2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:25 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

Steve:

Excellent post. I have already posted this at Newsvine dozens of times. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act removed regulations so that Wall Street giants could form again, as they did in the 1920's. They were then able to collapse the economy with a white collar crime wave and start the Great Depression and they were then able to collapse the economy again in 2008 with a white collar crime wave and start the Great Recession. I would only add the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act of 2000, which was a set of huge loopholes for Wall Street white collar criminals to exploit, from the Enron scandal to predatory lending to derivatives fraud to credit default swap gambling fraud.

These two bills enabled the recession of 2008 to happen. I am amazed more people don't know about the role these two bills had or that Phil Gramm has not been blamed directly as being the number one enabler of the recession. He was an ex Enron lobbyist.

There is no factual evidence that trickle down works. In fact, the evidence points to us having a trickle UP economy.

Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY

Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley ProfessorEmmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Timescolumnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing."

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"

Another part of the picture is that many if not most of these super rich have tax evasion bank accounts offshore. THEY ARE GIVING THEMSELVES A TAX CUT, SO WHY DOES GOVERNMENT NEED TO GIVE THEM ANOTHER TAX CUT! In the UBS court case recently, this favorite offshore tax evasion Swiss bank was discovered to have over four thousand rich and super rich Americans evading taxes.

  • 6 votes
#2.3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:02 PM EST
Glen-1484791

Steve, Mountain, Waffle, Let's not forget that the deregulation of the financial ;lending sector and spin off of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac was done during and by the Clinton administration as well so everyone could own a home, which in turn was a major contributor to the economic downturn.

Also, the surplus of the Clinton years was a result of deregulation (which he did! for the information super highway...remember that term?)..that stimulated the stock market boom and derived billions on tax revenues until the burst.

So Clinton admin took part in its share of deregulation which we are paying for today in the long run. Both the GOP and the DEMS can take credit AND blame for this.

Honestly, I place the rest of the blame on Alan Greenspan, who I could not believe allowed interest rates to go so low..I kept screaming he was killing us! The icing on the cake is he claimed later when he was out of office that he did not know what was going on in the industry while he was running the countries fiscal policy!

  • 3 votes
#2.4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:25 PM EST
rimbauda

It's as simple as this: we cannot afford to continue the "temporary" "Bush" tax cuts until more tax payers are employed and thriving. Once that happens, we can reduce tax rates again (no one will complain). In the meantime, we must eliminate those things that have most significantly put us in debt. When times are good, we share the wealth; when time are tough, we "chip-in".

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:57 PM EST
Steve-485394

Glen: Both GNMA, FNMA, and Freddie, received their charters from the Congress of the US, and part of the terms were that any and all mortgages which were deemed by the lending institutions to qualify as investment grade had to be purchased by those mortgage lending giants. They, meaning the banks and such put them into $25 million dollar packages and then sold the package as BBB rated or better, the Investment banks then bought them back, slicing and dicing them into tranches which were then sold both here and around the world as again no less than investment grade and made sure the package was covered by Insurance sold by AIG, These became the CDO's, CMO,s and any and all other collateralized debt obligations which later imploded from lack of proper reserves....

We can discuss this if you wish, my area of knowledge, Investment Banking for some 31 years!

    #2.6 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:32 PM EST
    Reply
    John Bayner

    So what else is new, the party of the rich proves it once again, if you're not wealthy you will have to sacrifice, If you are wealthy commence your mythical job creation.

    • 7 votes
    Reply#3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:28 PM EST
    greg m-1174186

    both "parties stink"

    America was never the land of the free hand out.

    People need to work and have an even playing field or it will fail

    FLAT tax, and limit free hand out entitlements to 90 and it must be repaid.

    NO free handouts for not working.

    • 2 votes
    #3.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:05 PM EST
    waffle

    A flat tax is a massively regressive idea popularized by the ultra wealthy as a way to further shift the tax burden onto the middle class and the poor. And if you want to make all assistance tied to having a job, how do we ensure that those who have a job earn enough to survive? Or is having a poor paying job tantamount to slow starvation?

    I'm sure bumper sticker phrasing is a lot of fun, but it doesn't address the very real and deadly serious problems going on here.

    • 5 votes
    #3.2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:51 PM EST
    John Bayner

    Where do you propose these people look for a job, oh right the job creators are hard at work creating jobs.

    I know both party's suck, but one would have to be a complete moron and I'm NOT saying you to think the GOP is looking out for you, that is unless you are very wealthy.

    • 4 votes
    #3.3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:56 PM EST
    Mike-1499840

    A flat tax is a massively regressive idea

    No it isn't. Saying it is, is like saying 70 is less than 10. Only in the liberal universe is this true.

    • 2 votes
    #3.4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:57 PM EST
    ffeineandsugar

    Really, Mike. I don't think you begin to understand how a flat tax would operate. Lets see: first, the rates that would be changed for the poor would be far less than the reductions that the wealthy would see. Second, the deductions that the poor have may appear minimal, in fact, many would be losing credits, not losing deductions. Meanwhile the wealthy would lose some deductions, but not as many as popular fiction would have it. The overall result is a shifting of tax burdens from the wealthy to the poor. Add in a consumption tax, as Mr. Cain and other candidates are proposing, and the shift becomes much more pronounced - everybody knows that a VAT or other sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes out there!

    Only in the liberal universe is this true.

    As opposed to? Foxland, where everyone benefits when they kowtow to the 1%, and screw themselves??? I don't think so - and I'm worried that people with that view are suffering from terminal cases of economic rectal-cranial inversion. You really don't want to be numbered among these, do you???

    • 4 votes
    #3.5 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:26 PM EST
    mighty heidi

    You probably waste your time watching that wackjob Rachel Madcow, what an idiot. Dishonest propaganda, why would you waste your time,-- watching Mr. Ed would be more productive!!!

    • 1 vote
    #3.6 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:12 PM EST
    John Bayner

    So you're a fan of the Ed Schultz show.

    There are plenty of idiots in the media, but FOX propaganda channel takes the cake.

    In the morning you have funny looking Gretchen Carlson, Steve Douchy, and the guy with the brillo head hairdo.

    Noon you have Megyn Kelly probably the most harmless of the lineup.

    Then you have a show called the 5 one token fat ass pretending to be the Liberal while the other 4 two bimbos and a couple of Alpha male @!$%# heads.

    Then the lineup goes to the crap house.

    Brett Bair, Sean Hannity, Bill O i'm in love with myself O'reilly.

    I watch fox news for the entertainment, you watch it for the bull@!$%#.

    • 1 vote
    #3.7 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:57 PM EST
    greg m-1174186

    Math must not be your strong point. The flat tax will work and is simple for both consumers and corporations. Simple and no cheating.

    We ill always need to have a safety net for the poor. But not free money. 90 day loan NOT Free money

      #3.8 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:43 PM EST
      Reply
      Dean Moriarty

      Kerry can add this to his long list of political failures.

      • 7 votes
      Reply#4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:44 PM EST
      mountainmike-1199289

      Cheap shot. Who blocked the progress of the committee? Teapublicans insisting on tax cuts for the rich and tax loopholes for corporations.

      If Corporations And The Rich Paid Taxes At The Same Level As The 1960s, The Debt Would Disappear

      As congressional negotiators continue to debate the contents of a deficit reduction package, discussions arereportedly tilting toward a deal that will include spending cuts but no revenue increases.

      Over at the Campaign for America’s Future, the Institute for Policy Studies’ (IPS) Sam Pizzigati notes that one way to very easily tackle U.S. debt going forward would be to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy to levels more closely matching mid-20th century rates. Pizzigati cites an IPS paper from last spring to make the argument that if corporations and households making more than $1 million paid the same rates as they did in 1961, our debt would virtually disappear in a decade:

      Some numbers — from an Institute for Policy Studies report released this past spring — can help us better visualize just how monumental this political failure has been. If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year. In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.

      • 5 votes
      #4.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:07 PM EST
      Reply
      J.D. Clemente

      Let's ask ourselves this question, "Why is it that both parties can play nice for so long but when a bump in the road comes, it's cry baby time?"

      This proves that the infrustructure of our current leaders has no intention of working well with others. The economic crisis we are currently facing is due to years of living above our means as well as rhetoric from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

      If you listen to the news today, we hear about this "super committee" falling apart thereby causing the tax credits (the middle-class needs) being thrown to the side. This 'decision' was made by both Democratic and Republican parties as they both failed to "work nicely with others".

      The failure of this committee is worried about tax credits rather than creating jobs. History has clearly shown that in a Democratic society, the economy grows when jobs are created. How about our leaders start discussing this subject, "How to empower the people to create business to create jobs".

      • 3 votes
      Reply#5 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:03 PM EST
      greg m-1174186

      Tax spend, that's all ANY of them understand.

      They will do anything to keep their high paying jobs.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#6 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:03 PM EST
      TennisMom2

      Greg, would you be willing to give up your mortgage interest deduction in the name of 'free government handouts'? That little perk costs the government billions of dollars. Poor people don't benefit from it, wealthy people don't really benefit from it either. It is purely a middle class entitlement program.

      Why should you get a tax deduction at the expense of people who rent or can't otherwise afford a home? The money's gotta come from somewhere. If you believe the rich or the corporations shouldn't pony up, how about the middle class? Who would you rather see pay?

      • 1 vote
      #6.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:44 PM EST
      greg m-1174186

      Tennismom2:

      To start with I was not put on this earth or Country to support others. Might sound cruel but that is a fact.

      Second: I am already paying an unfair % of tax to support the wants of others. NOT my wants, others. Giving anything to the government to waste.....PLEASE

      Flat Tax is the only fair way.. for Corporations and people...

      But you can NOT just take money away form working people and give to others (lazy or not)

      NO FREE rides.............. True some people who do not work might starve. It happen everyday all through history..... Sorry, I chose to work and be responsible

        #6.2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:48 PM EST
        TennisMom2

        Greg, no you did not choose simply to work and be responsible. You chose to whine about how our government spends money on things of which you don't approve. If you are focusing on entitlement programs, you must include the mortgage interest deduction. Taxpayers are giving you a break because you chose to buy a house. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the workers. Ditching the mortgage-interest deduction might help keep it solvent.

        So what are you other gripes? Welfare? That's paltry compared to what is spent on the military, infrastructure, agencies which ensure our food safety, airline safety, drug safety, etc. etc. etc.

        Maybe you are unfairly taxed. Watching billionaires get tax breaks and corporations get tax rebates should make all of us taxpayers angry.

          #6.3 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:07 PM EST
          greg m-1174186

          NO....My comment is tax and spend, THEY will do anything to keep their jobs.

          YOU sent the post down the road of mortgage interest and then entitlement programs

          If you don't think our government is taxing and spending, out of control and wasting money, then comment on the issue: please

            #6.4 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:56 PM EST
            Reply
            melissatechy

            someone did good planning. premeditory thought.

              Reply#7 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:08 PM EST
              nmbg

              Where's the beef? Where's the leadership? And this is a surprise - to whom?

              • 1 vote
              Reply#8 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:10 PM EST
              nmbg

              Between the massive corruption and a second credit downgrade looming, this "historic presidency" sure is shaping up to pretty darned historic.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#9 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:19 PM EST
              mighty heidi

              we won't know the true extent of the damage obama and the democraps have done to our country until he is out of office, so much for the promised "transparency". This obama has been the most dishonest lying president in my lifetime.

              • 1 vote
              #9.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:08 PM EST
              Colonial82

              This obama has been the most dishonest lying president in my lifetime.

              Mighty heidi,

              How has he been the "most dishonest lying president"? What has he lied about? What has he been dishonest about?

              P.S. I am not a liberal, on the left, or even a Democrat so please don't come back calling me that.

              Have a good day.

              • 1 vote
              #9.2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:31 PM EST
              jumpshotjarrod

              @ mighty

              This obama has been the most dishonest lying president in my lifetime.

              Then allow me to say that you have the highest computer literacy of any 2 year old I've ever met.

              • 2 votes
              #9.3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:34 PM EST
              nospin1

              mightyheidi - After Obama is gone from office we can be like dems and say it will take at least 4 years to repair the damage. After the first 4 years we can be like dems again and say it will take 8 years.

              Hopefully the first 4 years start in Jan 2013.

                #9.4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:51 PM EST
                jumpshotjarrod

                @ nospin1

                After Obama is gone from office we can be like dems and say it will take at least 4 years to repair the damage. After the first 4 years we can be like dems again and say it will take 8 years.

                You could try that, but I doubt highly that objective economists would agree with you. In contrast, objective economists generally agreed with the assessment that it would take 3-5 years, best case scenario, to undo the economic mess of 2008.

                Once again, it's not a matter of comparable equivalence. The objective, verifiable facts matter. If you want to turn it into a partisan pep rally, fair enough. However, for the record, the facts probably won't agree with you.

                • 2 votes
                #9.5 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:12 PM EST
                nospin1

                We have different opinions but neither can be confirmed with factual evidence, so they are just that, opinions.

                  #9.6 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:10 PM EST
                  jumpshotjarrod

                  @ nospin1

                  That's an extremely shallow way of attributing equal amounts of credibility to (1) opinions supported by reasoned analysis of raw data by objective experts and (2) opinions supported by nothing more than vitriolic and hyperbolic rage.

                  No, we should not lend equal credibility to those two types of opinions - that notion is absurd.

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.7 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:50 PM EST
                  nospin1

                  jump - Opinions supported by reasoned analysis of raw data by objective experts -repub positions.

                  Opinions supported by nothing more than vitrolic and hyperbolic rage - dem rhetoric

                    #9.8 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:42 PM EST
                    jumpshotjarrod

                    @ nospin1

                    Umm..... no

                    On the revenue side, the Bush tax cuts — formally the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 — were the biggest chunk of lost income: $1.5 trillion. That dwarfs all other revenue changes, including tax cuts in the 2009 stimulus. The 2001 tax cut alone is bigger than any other single change, representing $1.2 trillion from 2002-11.
                    link

                    So, the Bush Tax Cuts cost the nation 1.5 Trillion dollars in revenue from 2002-11. But tax cuts give "job creators" the means to create jobs, right? Except, that same time frame saw one of the worst job creation records in our history link But, tax cuts create economic growth though, right? Well.........

                    President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges. link

                    And what's the Republican stance right now?? Keep those tax cuts, and refuse even consider ANYTHING else until everyone agrees to keep ALL of those tax cuts. And you consider that to be a stance rooted in reasoned analysis??? C-O-M-I-C-A-L

                    • 3 votes
                    #9.9 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:29 PM EST
                    nospin1

                    The unemployment rate has remained higher under Obama than under Bush.

                    Obama's first term has resulted in far greater fiscal problems than under Bushhad as smaller impact. That is no C-O-M-I-C-A-l, that is sad leadership.

                    That is not comical it is

                      #9.10 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:56 PM EST
                      Reply
                      ma91744-1401618

                      "Republicans for years have bashed Democrats as eager to raise taxes..."

                      Republicans fail to say that they bashed Democrats for years as eager to raise taxes on the rich and wealthy.

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#10 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:34 PM EST
                      jumpshotjarrod

                      This is ABSURD. The Bush Tax Cuts cost the nation 1.5 Trillion dollars in lost revenues over the last decade. Furthermore, job creation over that decade was historically awful. How on earth can ANYONE, rational or not, still demand that these tax cuts be left in place?

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#11 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:51 PM EST
                      Castor Bridge

                      Obama is going to use attacks on congress as a big part of his election campaign. Is anyone really naive enough to think that the Democrats were going to agree to any kind of a compromise?

                      • 4 votes
                      #11.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:57 PM EST
                      roybokhade

                      I don't believe it's even about the Bush Tax Cuts anymore. The narrative has gotten so absurd, the ideological divide so great and the dysfunction so paralyzing, that it feels like the Bush Tax Cuts are just the poster child for everything that's wrong with D.C.

                      It's like having that fight with your spouse where things go on for so long and get so heated, you end up forgetting about what originally started the argument in the first place.

                      Now we're stuck in limbo until next year's election. I find this bizarre. Unless one party or the other wins the Presidency and super majorities in both Houses of Congress won't the current gridlock just continue? Whoever wins next November will claim a mandate from the people, but when has that ever had an effect on politics in D.C.

                      As to your point specifically, yes I wish the Republican's would take Mr. Obama's offer on entitlement reform and package it with revenue increases in whatever form they see fit. If anything, it will get them to shut up about this particular issue and start bashing each other over something else.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.2 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:05 PM EST
                      mountainmike-1199289

                      Why should the Democrats compromise when they are the only ones compromising? Then in the meantime the Teapublicans once again are the obstructionists unwilling to compromise on anything at all.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:11 PM EST
                      Catch22

                      Why should the Democrats compromise when they are the only ones compromising?

                      Apparently according to the GOP: Giving 270 billion in alleged new revenue in exchange for getting 3.6 trillion in decreased revenue IS a comprimise.

                      Thats kind of like offering to give someone 1 dollar in exchange for 10 dollars, and being offended when your kind offer is refused.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:34 PM EST
                      jumpshotjarrod

                      @ castorbridge

                      Obama is going to use attacks on congress as a big part of his election campaign. Is anyone really naive enough to think that the Democrats were going to agree to any kind of a compromise?

                      That's the thing about the Bush Tax Cuts though - by every objective analysis, there really shouldn't be a "compromise". Those cuts cost the country over a trillion dollars, and they didn't stimulate job creation or exponential economic growth. There's no earthly reason why a portion of, or all of, those tax cuts shouldn't be ended - no reason aside from good ole' fashioned adherence to dogmatic ideology that is.

                      The moral equivalence game has to stop - there are times when it's not a matter of equal competing theories, but a matter of what works and what doesn't.

                        #11.5 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:09 PM EST
                        nospin1

                        jumpshot - continuing to blame things Bush did is not the forward looking leadership America needs. Look to the current POTUS with almost 3 years in office and you will see the problem. Don't even go to the filibusterings the repubs did as that was vindicated by the 2010 election results.

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.6 - Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:23 PM EST
                        nospin1

                        no response from jumpshot - as expected when facts support a different point of view from dem rhetoric.

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.7 - Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:21 PM EST
                        jumpshotjarrod

                        @ nospin1

                        jumpshot - continuing to blame things Bush did is not the forward looking leadership America needs.

                        And continuing to characterizing any review of past decisions as "blaming" is not the forward thinking discussion that our populace needs. I didn't "blame" anyone - I simply outlined the past impact that a given piece of legislation has had. I would think that you and I could both agree that reviewing the impact of past legislation is a vital piece of determining whether or not to move forward with the same legislation.

                        You seem insistent on turning this discussion into a partisan pep rally - all I've done is outline the impact that a given piece of legislation has had; specifically in regard to whether or not to move forward with the same legislation again. I don't give a damn which party is calling for what policies; the reality is that ANYONE from ANY PARTY whom continues to tout tax cuts as the answer to economic prosperity is directly disregarding the facts of the matter.

                        While you continue to wage an "us" vs. "them" battle between "libs" and "cons", I'll continue to advocate for POLICIES based on the measured analysis of those policies.

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.8 - Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:53 PM EST
                        Reply
                        John Bayner

                        I'm sure the season of giving is right around the corner for republicans, I can see it now, cut 1.2 trillion in spending or we're not renewing the middle class tax cuts.

                        They did the exact same thing last December, no unemployment benefit extension right before Christmas if you don't extend all the Bush tax cuts.

                        Some Republicans are just plain evil.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#12 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:59 PM EST
                        nospin1

                        Agreed that some republicans are just plain eveil. Also some democrats are just plain evil.

                          #12.1 - Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:41 PM EST
                          Reply
                          RobPlumley

                          Though Medicare needs reforming to lower costs in the forthcoming years, as well as many other programs needing to become more efficient, what gets my ire is the following:

                          Another member of the supercommittee, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said, "It is deeply regrettable that my Democrat colleagues could not see their way to addressing these much-needed reforms without at least $1 trillion in job-killing tax increases on families and employers."

                          There is simply no empirical data to support the Bush tax cuts did anything to spur economic activity or the creation of jobs.

                          Until the electorate figures this out, our deficits will continue.

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#13 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:08 PM EST
                          mountainmike-1199289

                          Here is the long term track record for voodoo, trickle down Reaganomics, which is what the current Republicans are holding to dogmatically.

                          What They Won't Tell You about the National Debt
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA

                          Reagan and the two Bushes account for $9.2 trillion of the national debt, over $11 trillion with interest added in. That's about 77 percent of the entire national debt accounted for by just three Republican presidents. How did they do it? Tax cuts to the rich, tax loopholes/subsidies for corporations and excessive military spending.

                          And what are the current Republicans advocating? The same old, same old voodoo trickle down Reaganomics. They want to keep tax cuts to the rich, tax loopholes/subsidies for corporations. The Paul Ryan proposed budget for the future incredibly INCREASES military spending despite our current plans to close down both of our multi trillion dollar quagmires in the Mideast. Mitt Romney, the Republican front runner, is against withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and has said that if he is elected president he would prepare for war with Iran.

                          • 2 votes
                          #13.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:18 PM EST
                          Reply
                          Penn State SucksDeleted
                          gary-1157637

                          Why is there a 'supercomitee' ? Is it to protect most of the incumbents by selecting twelve to be voted out ?

                          How is it that our congress can cooperate behind closed doors, but in public, they oppose each and every thing the other party proposes ?

                          Why are they making this mess a campaign issue? Are we to believe that if one party gets the white house, things will magically improve ? The wealthy have enjoyed ten years of tax cuts.....ok, lets not take it ALL away.....how about 50 percent ? No....that would be reasonable !

                          I propose a radical Idea.....Let's limit congress to 3 terms ! It is obviously time for some new blood .....and if they can only serve three terms, we won't be stuck forever with bad people in congress !

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#15 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:23 PM EST
                          john-482021

                          Incompetent rich people can't run a country and run it right. It is time to change how we think in this country. It's the rich against the poor. It's time for the poor to be against the rich.

                          • 4 votes
                          Reply#16 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:26 PM EST
                          rational thought-3748544

                          Let's face it. The GOP/TP has become a political cult made up of out-of-touch, disconnected. self-serving fools. The country can not move forward and remain a world leader until they are all voted out.

                          • 4 votes
                          Reply#17 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:54 PM EST
                          TennisMom2

                          John and Rational, one can only hope that the OWS protesters show up on Election Day to do just that, vote them OUT.

                          • 3 votes
                          #17.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:49 PM EST
                          The American 1Deleted
                          TennisMom2

                          The GOP doesn't have to look for the bathroom. They do their business on the American People instead.

                          • 2 votes
                          #17.3 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:13 PM EST
                          Reply
                          Poorworkingman

                          Just let the fricking thing expired already. Everybody pays and the country wins! Forget the poor and the rich thing. For the poor it will hurt a little but we'll survive, nothing much to loose anyway. Just let the damn thing expired so we can move on to rebuilt tomorrow "Stronger USA". No more tax cut bullsh!t. Rich and poor don't like it then you're welcome to stay or go as you're pleased as long as this country survives that's all it matters to me.

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#18 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:12 PM EST
                          Poorworkingman

                          I don't get it. "Why?" this President and the Democrats stubbornly play their game on democrat's term. Play a new game "I didn't raise taxes, I just let your bad policy which hurts the country expires". Just pure "being stupid" on dragging down the country.

                          • 1 vote
                          #18.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:51 PM EST
                          Reply
                          mountainmike-1199289

                          rational thought:

                          Exactly.Good post!

                          • 2 votes
                          Reply#19 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:21 PM EST
                          The American 1Deleted
                          mighty heidi

                          where is obama, he should stop his perennial campaigning and get back to Wash. and act like a leader. Thanks to this obama, the budget deal fell through. Obama does not have the guts to do what is right for America, he is a weak leader.

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#21 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:03 PM EST
                          rational thought-3748544

                          And you are weak on a grasp of reality.

                            #21.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:53 PM EST
                            The American 1Deleted
                            Reply
                            Lions52

                            Until this congress is "refreshed" with new leaders who are concerned with this country and not beholdin to the special interests and corporate interests, NOTHING WILL CHANGE, NOTHING. We may as well accept this fact and face the reality that it's going to get worse.

                              Reply#22 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:10 PM EST
                              tax211hurts

                              Steve,

                              Your 2.2 post is incorrect.

                              Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act....BEFORE George W. Bush was even inaugurated.

                              Typical liberal.

                              Try getting your facts straight before you spew.

                              To do otherwise, is called LYING.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#23 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:20 PM EST
                              rational thought-3748544

                              Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

                              Obviously, you don't know who was responsible for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that essentially repealed Glass-Steagall and the run-up to it's signing or you choose to ignore it.

                              Typical blind conservative.

                                #23.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:36 PM EST
                                The American 1Deleted
                                tax211hurts

                                rat,

                                The buck didn't stop with Billy.

                                He signed it, to the objections of many of his economic advisors.

                                The repeal of Glass-Steagall deregulated the banks.

                                PERIOD.

                                Your argument is moot.

                                It all comes back to Billy.

                                His hand and pen SIGNED the repeal into law.

                                Anything that came after that was simply bad legislation.

                                Duh.

                                The G-S Act kept the banks regulated.

                                For DECADES, in fact!

                                Until Billy wanted everybody to be able to buy their own home.

                                THAT is how the banks, TRULY, got screwed up.

                                Bad loans and bad mortgages began flying out the doors to people who KNEW that they were in over their heads!

                                THANKS TO BILLY!

                                PERIOD.

                                • 1 vote
                                #23.3 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:52 PM EST
                                rational thought-3748544

                                I will admit that Clinton played a part in this fiasco called Gramm-Leach-Bliley, but he is only one along the line of a strong deregulatory push that began with the election of Ronald Reagan and continued under Republican pressure and even the blessing of Fed chairman Alan Greenspan (who latter admitted his error in trusting the banks and wall street) who convinced Clinton that the bill was a good idea.

                                Believe what you want, but to blame Clinton alone for the economic and financial meltdown when so many Republicans and finacial leaders since Reagan have played a much larger role is simply re-writing history.

                                I suggest you read the book "Too Big To Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin, a wall street investigator, if you want to understand why we are today economically.

                                  #23.4 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:14 PM EST
                                  Reply
                                  Fox_News

                                  Yeah yeah same old song and dance from our ball-less and dick-less so-called leaders. "It's your fault". "No it's your fault". Throw all of them out starting with our clueless leader the witless wonder.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#24 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:31 PM EST
                                  FactOfTheMatter

                                  I bet you any other person as President would probably have had the same effect. What, you think things would have been different if McCain and Palin had won instead?

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #24.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:06 PM EST
                                  Reply
                                  FactOfTheMatter

                                  Other Republicans wanted even more political cover: a guarantee that all the Bush tax cuts would be made permanent.

                                  The Bush tax cuts were a bad idea when they were implemented. They were a bad idea when Obama extended them. They're a bad idea now.

                                  Tax cuts are great during times of surplus and balanced budgets to pay for them, they're disastrous when you borrow money to pay for them like GW Bush did.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  Reply#25 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:05 PM EST
                                  tgraf-4575953

                                  I think if both sides would get over their differences, we would all be better off. This whole situation reminds me of a couple of kids fighting over something, only on a grand scale. In a sit-com this whole thing would be hilarious, but in reality this is frightening. This political posturing and in fighting is tearing down the country and diminishing our prestige as a world leader. In the eyes of the world we must look more and more like a bunch of bumpkins! I'm not entirely against making the high earners pay at a higher rate, it makes sense to see them pay a larger share. But I feel the more sensible approach is to reform the federal (and many state) tax codes to a simple formula that will ensure everyone pays their fair share. No exceptions, no loopholes, and NO special interests. The problem is, the knuckle heads we have in office now are too busy protecting their own status and not their constituencies.

                                    Reply#26 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:13 PM EST
                                    DocPhil
                                    Tax and spend liberals...... that is the republican big lie....... Every republican administration has outspent their suceeding democratic administration since Eisenhower...... Tax...... the largest tax hikes have come during republican administrations..... the problem is they are almost always on the working class..... every time there is a republican in the white house, the amount of income inequality increases..... who's holding up a deal?...... simple answer....... put higher taxes for the top 1 or 2 % on the table and see if the democrats come back with realistic cuts to programs.... the answer is those tax changes are going to be protected by the republicans and everyone else in this country can go to hell for all they care.
                                    • 4 votes
                                    Reply#27 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:23 PM EST
                                    rational thought-3748544

                                    You got it right Doc.

                                      #27.1 - Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:27 PM EST
                                      greg m-1174186

                                      Flat tax on individuals and corporations gross income is the only simple fair way and will end cheating the system.

                                      We will always need a safety net for the poor. a 90 day LOAN, not free money, could work.

                                      But we continue to provide YEARS of free entitlement money. why work? Why have insurance?

                                        #27.2 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:00 PM EST
                                        Reply
                                        Leave a Comment:
                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                        FUN STUFF:
                                        • Leaderboard |
                                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                                        • Top of the Vine |
                                        • Newsvine Live |
                                        • Newsvine Archives |
                                        • The Greenhouse |
                                        COMPANY STUFF:
                                        • Code of Honor |
                                        • Company Info |
                                        • Contact Us |
                                        • Jobs |
                                        • User Agreement |
                                        • Privacy Policy |
                                        • About our ads
                                        LEGAL STUFF:
                                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com