Boehner decides tax cuts for the rich are more important than the debt

[^_^ 5,021]

The sweeping deal Obama and Boehner were discussing would have required both parties to take a bold leap into the political abyss. Democrats were demanding more than $800 billion in new tax revenue, causing heartburn among the hard-line fiscal conservatives who dominate the House Republican caucus. Republicans, meanwhile, were demanding sharp cuts to Medicare and Social Security, popular safety net programs that congressional Democrats have vowed to protect.

Obama, at least, was willing to make that leap and had put significant reductions to entitlement programs on the table. But on Saturday, Boehner blinked: Republican aides said he could not, in the end, reach agreement with the White House on a strategy to permit the Bush-era tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest households to expire next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2011/07/09/gIQARUJ55H_story.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The sweeping deal Obama and Boehner were discussing would have required both parties to take a bold leap into the political abyss. Democrats were demanding more than $800 billion in new tax revenue, causing heartburn among the hard-line fiscal conservatives who dominate the House Republican caucus. Republicans, meanwhile, were demanding sharp cuts to Medicare and Social Security, popular safety net programs that congressional Democrats have vowed to protect.

Obama, at least, was willing to make that leap and had put significant reductions to entitlement programs on the table. But on Saturday, Boehner blinked: Republican aides said he could not, in the end, reach agreement with the White House on a strategy to permit the Bush-era tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest households to expire next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2011/07/09/gIQARUJ55H_story.html

That big crybaby has some balls!

[lostinblue 1,989]

Gov't eases foreclosure rules for unemployed

Government will let unemployed homeowners with FHA-backed loans miss payments for a full year

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-eases-foreclosure-rules-apf-1443484881.html?x=0

everything with obama is a house of cards

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gov't eases foreclosure rules for unemployed

Government will let unemployed homeowners with FHA-backed loans miss payments for a full year

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-eases-foreclosure-rules-apf-1443484881.html?x=0

everything with obama is a house of cards

That should screw the credit and housing markets for the next decade.

[Danno 1,228]

The problem is "spending"... not "income".

[lostinblue 1,989]

That should screw the credit and housing markets for the next decade.

Demand (not government) is the mechanism by which the price willing to be paid by consumers and the supply provided by the producers reaches its equilibrium . Essentially, this allows prices and the supply of goods to stay where people need them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem is "spending"... not "income".

You're uninformed. Tax revenues are at historic lows. In fact, tax revenues have dropped more than spending has increased. But I know that you don't really do facts. Sorry for tossing them in here.

The sweeping deal Obama and Boehner were discussing would have required both parties to take a bold leap into the political abyss. Democrats were demanding more than $800 billion in new tax revenue, causing heartburn among the hard-line fiscal conservatives who dominate the House Republican caucus. Republicans, meanwhile, were demanding sharp cuts to Medicare and Social Security, popular safety net programs that congressional Democrats have vowed to protect.

Obama, at least, was willing to make that leap and had put significant reductions to entitlement programs on the table. But on Saturday, Boehner blinked: Republican aides said he could not, in the end, reach agreement with the White House on a strategy to permit the Bush-era tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest households to expire next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2011/07/09/gIQARUJ55H_story.html

That's what I said all along - this isn't about the deficit or the debt. The GOP has never nor will it ever care about deficits and debts. They're the masters of deficits and debt.

[웃 910]

The problem is "spending"... not "income".

When was the last time you took an intermediate or higher economics course?

[mawilson 2,133]

You're uninformed. Tax revenues are at historic lows.

While tax revenues are at historic lows, spending has never been higher. Shouldn't spending be at historic lows as well?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

While tax revenues are at historic lows, spending has never been higher. Shouldn't spending be at historic lows as well?

When forty cents out of every dollar Obama spends is borrowed, you would think so, wouldn't you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

While tax revenues are at historic lows, spending has never been higher. Shouldn't spending be at historic lows as well?

Sure, if you want more unemployment and slower growth. Check out Ireland. They cut back on public spending and it's worked enormously well for them, didn't it? Oh wait, their deficits are actually growing faster than their economy. And they have record unemployment to boot. There isn't a developed country that has saved itself to prosperity. You've essentially got the choice between active deficits (where the public sector steps in creating demand where the private sector pulls back) or passive deficits (where ever more people are unemployed and tax revenues sink sharper than you can cut spending). In the case of the former, you have an opportunity to invest in the country's infrastructure and lay the groundwork for tomorrow's economy. In the process, jobs are maintained and created and revenues pick back up. In the case of the latter, you have nothing. Lost decades at best.

[mawilson 2,133]

Sure, if you want more unemployment and slower growth.

Yes, I prefer slow growth that is *real* to the illusory debt-driven growth that we've "enjoyed" over the past 30 years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, I prefer slow growth that is *real* to the illusory debt-driven growth that we've "enjoyed" over the past 30 years.

It's happening. And it has been happening over the past few decades. Recovery after recovery, the de-leveraging is becoming ever more painful. The way out, as I see it, is to make a decisive push towards tomorrow's economy. But we're not doing that. America has decided not to lead the global economy anymore but rather to be lead. Big mistake that's going to cost us and future generations dearly - much more than we'll be able to ever cut from any budget.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

You're uninformed. Tax revenues are at historic lows. In fact, tax revenues have dropped more than spending has increased. But I know that you don't really do facts. Sorry for tossing them in here.

I'll accept facts if you have them.

When you say "tax revenues are at historic lows"

with this hugely sluggish economy how could that not be true? IN fact this is the effect at nearly every level of Government.

The effort to choke the rich while giving - ever growing refunds to the poor and middle, is having it's effect.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'll accept facts if you have them.

When you say "tax revenues are at historic lows"

with this hugely sluggish economy how could that not be true? IN fact this is the effect at nearly every level of Government.

The effort to choke the rich while giving - ever growing refunds to the poor and middle, is having it's effect.

Are you sure? Consumer spending by the wealthy is up because by in large their investments are returning. With a consumer based economy, the recovery can only pick up steam when the middle class begin to spend again.