Oh This is RICH... Obama "Blackmailed" Into Extended Tax Cuts For All..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course, I'm well aware of that study. Show me a study that illustrates tax cuts lower spending and we'll get somewhere. At the end of the day, the GOP are supporting adding to the deficit. Plain and simple.

Good point. Saying that expenses go up more than receipts when taxes are increased says nothing about the fact that expenditures also go up when taxes are lowered.

Take the Bush years, for example: tax rates were lowered in 2001 and then again in 2003. Expenditures went up north of 6% annually w/ the exception of 2007 to average 6.61% annual increases. Same picture for the Gipper's term - average rise of expenditures was 6.79%.

Take the "aweful" Clinton years in contrast where taxes were raised - remember the false claims of the biggest tax increases in history? - while expenditures grew much more modestly somewhere between 2% and 4% (average 3.26%) anually.

If anything, this would suggest that expenditures actually grow faster if taxes are cut than they do when taxes are raised. So, perhaps the supporters of cutting federal spending ought to jump to the side of those that want to see tax rates raised.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Good point. Saying that expenses go up more than receipts when taxes are increased says nothing about the fact that expenditures also go up when taxes are lowered.

Take the Bush years, for example: tax rates were lowered in 2001 and then again in 2003. Expenditures went up north of 6% annually w/ the exception of 2007 to average 6.61% annual increases. Same picture for the Gipper's term - average rise of expenditures was 6.79%.

Take the "aweful" Clinton years in contrast where taxes were raised - remember the false claims of the biggest tax increases in history? - while expenditures grew much more modestly somewhere between 2% and 4% (average 3.26%) anually.

If anything, this would suggest that expenditures actually grow faster if taxes are cut than they do when taxes are raised. So, perhaps the supporters of cutting federal spending ought to jump to the side of those that want to see tax rates raised.

you ignore the fact that tax receipts grew when the taxes were lowered..... The government made more money... they just blew it all......

Clinton also had a line-item Veto that helped him along quite nicely as well.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you ignore the fact that tax receipts grew when the taxes were lowered.

Actually, I didn't. Aside from the point that tax revenue grew less than GDP when taxes were lowered in the aughts, here I looked merely at the expenditure side of the equation since the claim was that additional tax revenue always results in more additional spending than what we would have in additional receipts. That is simply not the whole story. The whole story is that expenditures grew faster than receipts even when taxes were lowered and revenue relative to GDP decreased. This is why over the past decades - the current mess notwithstanding - deficits and the debt grew more under Republican administrations than they did under Democrats. I know it's inconvenient to the argument but that's how it is.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,348]

At the end of the day they voted for something that adds to the deficit with no way to pay for it. Sure I can blame them now. They could have waited until January no?

So, when Obama won in 2008, people were asked to give him time before criticising him and his policies. Yet those same people are now having a go at the incoming non-Democrat Congressmen and Senators before they are even seated? Same old do as we say, not as we do. Still, it will still be a Democrat-majority Congress (both houses) that passes this measure.

Meanwhile, the GOP will claim until 2012 that, if they had held both houses, they'd have passed a stand-alone tax measure. And the electorate is likely to believe them. Because the GOP got their tax cuts, which prevents more overspending, while the Democrats still got to spend money they don't have. Spin it any way you want, it is the Democrat-supported measures that spend the money and increase the deficit.

All the while, the Tea Party is sitting back, letting the two main parties make each other look like the fools they are.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Actually pookie I think you will find the newly elected yet not seated have already saved the country and the economy is the more common claim, at least on VJ.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, when Obama won in 2008, people were asked to give him time before criticising him and his policies. Yet those same people are now having a go at the incoming non-Democrat Congressmen and Senators before they are even seated? Same old do as we say, not as we do. Still, it will still be a Democrat-majority Congress (both houses) that passes this measure.

Meanwhile, the GOP will claim until 2012 that, if they had held both houses, they'd have passed a stand-alone tax measure. And the electorate is likely to believe them. Because the GOP got their tax cuts, which prevents more overspending, while the Democrats still got to spend money they don't have. Spin it any way you want, it is the Democrat-supported measures that spend the money and increase the deficit.

All the while, the Tea Party is sitting back, letting the two main parties make each other look like the fools they are.

Um, no. The issue had to do with those who wanted Obama to actually fail. That's different from opposing his agenda or criticizing his policies. Those who wanted him to fail, even before his first 100 days didn't care if he suddenly embraced every Republican policy, they wanted blood.

The GOP Senate, on the other, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, have said outright that they will obstruct and effectively shut down the fed. gov't. unless the Bush Tax Cuts are extended. It's a bold faced lie to pin out of control spending on the Democrats and you know it, or you're being obtuse to the facts.

[Pooky 3,348]

Um, no. The issue had to do with those who wanted Obama to actually fail. That's different from opposing his agenda or criticizing his policies. Those who wanted him to fail, even before his first 100 days didn't care if he suddenly embraced every Republican policy, they wanted blood.

The GOP Senate, on the other, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, have said outright that they will obstruct and effectively shut down the fed. gov't. unless the Bush Tax Cuts are extended. It's a bold faced lie to pin out of control spending on the Democrats and you know it, or you're being obtuse to the facts.

So, McConnell saying the GOP will obstruct and effectively shut down the Federal Government is a lie? Then why doesn't this Congress call them on it. Oh, I know why. Because the GOP in Congress will do just that. Nice try, but fail.

You forget that the GOP doesn't have to do anything to pin out of control spending on the Democrats. The electorate has already done that. See November 2nd for proof.

The extension of the current tax rates adds nothing to the deficit, it merely adds nothing to the revenue, either. Whether or not it provides a stimulus to the economy in the form of small employer confidence is another matter, one we will have to wait to find out the result.

The other two-thirds of the overall measure does add to the deficit and it is all Democrat-proposed legislation. But the GOP was willing to make a deal to get this measure through this Congress, to ensure that the tax rates did not lapse in the New Year. Bipartisan deal-making at work. I thought you wanted to see more of that? Or was that only when the GOP caved on something the Democrats proposed?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The GOP ran a masterful game of slight of hand, smears, and disinformation. The electorate, or just over half anyway, bought it hook, line and sinker. Still I wish those who won election the best of luck as we will all need it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The extension of the current tax rates adds nothing to the deficit, it merely adds nothing to the revenue, either. Whether or not it provides a stimulus to the economy in the form of small employer confidence is another matter, one we will have to wait to find out the result.

Ok - try this with your own finances. Take a big chunk out of your paycheck that you have normally paid your bills with and no longer use it to pay bills with. Oh, and you have to keep enough out so that you start getting behind on your bills every month because you no longer have enough. Then when your wife asks you what the hell you are doing, tell her that keeping that money has no effect on your monthly expenses. Then wait for her reaction.

Fiscal responsibility, which with the exception of President Clinton, has been all but absent in the WH going back to Reagan. You can't simply make tax cuts without making up for the lost revenue in other ways, or cutting expenditures. The GOP mindset that if we starve or underfund the fed gov't, spending will go down is not only a misguided fantasy, it has contributed to why we have a huge deficit. Even more reasonably minded Republicans, like the ones on the deficit reduction commission, admit that tax increases are going to be a necessary component to fiscal responsibility.

As for who gets blamed for this mess - actually, if you look at the polls, most Americans have less concern about deficit reduction than they do about the economy. This midterm election was about the economy - plain and simple. Obama was willing to compromise on extending the Bush Tax Cuts because tackling high unemployment is more important right now than reducing the deficit over the next 2 years. And the alternative would have been to let all the tax cuts expire, hitting the Middle Class the hardest.

Edited December 8, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, McConnell saying the GOP will obstruct and effectively shut down the Federal Government is a lie?

Nobody has made the claim you're looking to refute here (or should I say refudiate so that the Tea Partier in you can understand). Talk about fail.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[dalegg 143]

The Democrats misunderstood how hard the Republicans are willing to fight for the wealthy their true patrons.

And that really makes no sense. The GOP position on this has been pretty clear for quite some time. This is the reason why the Obama plan of 2009 and beyond was never going to work and why we are going to be saddled with ridiculous deficits for the next decade at least.

In order for his spending to have worked and reduced the deficit long term under even his own questionable predictions, we would have had to stick to that plan for 12- 20 years, line by line. It relies on higher taxes for the wealthy to pay for the extra spending. In order to raise taxes he was always going to have to have congresses approval which meant for the next 12-20 years the Democrat to Republican ratio in congress would have to have been the same as it was in 2009. Completely unrealistic, and because of this the blame for the extreme debt we are going to have as a result lies solely on his shoulders.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The extension of the current tax rates adds nothing to the deficit, it merely adds nothing to the revenue, either.

The already horrendous budget projections the CBO has provided for the coming decade were done on the basis of existing law - i.e. under the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire fully at the end of the year. If that doesn't happen, the CBO was very clear on the effects this would have on the deficit - it would grow. Remember that current tax law as passed by the GOP Congress and signed by a GOP President in 2001 and 2003 means that at the end of this year, taxes would rise back to pre-2001 levels - call it the GOP passed tax hikes of 2011. To claim that the anticipated change in tax law would have no impact on the deficit is just plain ignorant.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The already horrendous budget projections the CBO has provided for the coming decade were done on the basis of existing law - i.e. under the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire fully at the end of the year. If that doesn't happen, the CBO was very clear on the effects this would have on the deficit - it would grow. Remember that current tax law as passed by the GOP Congress and signed by a GOP President in 2001 and 2003 means that at the end of this year, taxes would rise back to pre-2001 levels - call it the GOP passed tax hikes of 2011. To claim that the anticipated change in tax law would have no impact on the deficit is just plain ignorant.

Spot on.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Spot on.

You would think so.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The already horrendous budget projections the CBO has provided for the coming decade were done on the basis of existing law - i.e. under the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire fully at the end of the year. If that doesn't happen, the CBO was very clear on the effects this would have on the deficit - it would grow. Remember that current tax law as passed by the GOP Congress and signed by a GOP President in 2001 and 2003 means that at the end of this year, taxes would rise back to pre-2001 levels - call it the GOP passed tax hikes of 2011. To claim that the anticipated change in tax law would have no impact on the deficit is just plain ignorant.

Lack of taxes DO NOT add to the defecit... Only spending does.

Stop acting like taxes matter. They do not.

The only thing that matters is actual spending.

If the government lived within its means like it's supposed to, then this would be a non-issue.

The only ignorance here is the willful ignorance of the class envy types who refuse to admit that the bottom 50% of the population do not pay income taxes, and then want to blame the "wealthy" Americans for getting a tax break. It's hilarious and only liberal stupidity could think like this.