Are Dems REALLY upset about the tax "compromise"?

[Anonymous]

Reading today's WaPo analysis of the 990B compromise bill, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE believes that the GOP won. The Dems tacked $2.50 of added spending on for every $1 the GOP championed in maintaining the Bush tax rates for all filers.

I have never accused journalists of being good at math, but I am taking this graphic at face value: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/tax-cut-compromise/index.html?sid=ST2010120800383 It seems light on the red and heavy on the blue.

[Anonymous]

They would have gone for the middle class tax cut alone if they had the chance. But they couldn't get it. But they knew the GOP would give anything for that upper class tax cut. So they picked the biggest thing they could think of asking for, and doubled it. And they got it.

[Anonymous]

So Dems are upset why?

[jsteele]

I'm upset because I've been listening to both parties scream about the deficit and how it was so important that we absolutely, positively, couldn't spend money on anything else. That's supposedly why Obama proposed a federal pay freeze. Then they turned around and added over 300 billion dollars to the deficit.

Moreover, the payroll tax holiday is a trojan horse. When it expires, we will be right back where we are now with the Republicans calling ending the holiday a "tax increase" and will be screaming that Democrats want to raise taxes. Or, the Republican House will simply refuse to transfer funds from the general fund to the social security trust fund. Either way, it puts Social Security at risk, which has been a Republican goal all along.

If the deficit is important, we can't afford to continue the Bush tax cuts. If the deficit is not important, we need more stimulus and tax cuts for the rich are the least stimulative expenditure possible. Instead of giving the rich more money, let's build some bridges or other infrastructure projects that will put people to work and benefit a lot more people (I prefer driving across bridges that don't collapse on my way over).

[Anonymous]

What's the point of the SS 2% break for a year? Is that considered part of a stimulus plan? What effect will it have on the Social Security fund? I just don't get why they are messing with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of the SS 2% break for a year? Is that considered part of a stimulus plan? What effect will it have on the Social Security fund? I just don't get why they are messing with that.

It puts a few more dollars into every paycheck, giving people a few more dollars to spend. Looks like a direct stimulus to me.

[Anonymous]

I'm upset because I've been listening to both parties scream about the deficit and how it was so important that we absolutely, positively, couldn't spend money on anything else. That's supposedly why Obama proposed a federal pay freeze. Then they turned around and added over 300 billion dollars to the deficit.

Moreover, the payroll tax holiday is a trojan horse. When it expires, we will be right back where we are now with the Republicans calling ending the holiday a "tax increase" and will be screaming that Democrats want to raise taxes. Or, the Republican House will simply refuse to transfer funds from the general fund to the social security trust fund. Either way, it puts Social Security at risk, which has been a Republican goal all along.

If the deficit is important, we can't afford to continue the Bush tax cuts. If the deficit is not important, we need more stimulus and tax cuts for the rich are the least stimulative expenditure possible. Instead of giving the rich more money, let's build some bridges or other infrastructure projects that will put people to work and benefit a lot more people (I prefer driving across bridges that don't collapse on my way over).

THIS - ITA

[Anonymous]

I don't entirely trust the media for math estimates, but it sounds like it will cost almost a *trillion* dollars over just 2 years, and if the tax cuts are extended again, as Republicans will surely insist, that would probably cost another trillion.

The other point, implicit but not explicit in what Jeff wrote, is that you can damn well be sure that when it comes time to fund programs that help people, or the environment, or infrastructure, the Republicans are going to be again screaming about the deficit and demanding new cuts. So there is a very real fear that the net result of this package in the long run is extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and making deep cuts in everything else.

Did anyone see the Rolling Stone story about how the coal company president got rich poisoning his neighbors' water (by injecting coal pollutants underground instead of treating them) and then paid to run a new, clean water line to his own house? That about sums up what's going to happen to this country on a large scale.

[Anonymous]

Which Dems? Liberals or moderates? They don't play nicely together.

[Anonymous]

The deficit and the size of government are only good for political footballing.

Otherwise the GOP would be proposing Social Security freezes, Medicare cuts, withdrawals of ground forces from less troubled areas of the world, and an exit from Afghanistan that would resemble the British exit from India and Palestine.

But they're not.

When US Treasury issues doesn't get subscribed fully and interest rates start spiking up to 10, 12, 15%, then it starts to matter.

I'm sure Brother Ben will be around for some more of whatever it is he did a few months ago. In a pinch, Congress could just authorize the issuance of X billion of United States Notes (as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes.)

Is it better to have a few years of relative peace and a 90% chance of bad stuff happening later, or a 100% chance of bad stuff happening now?

I'll take the former, thankyouverymuch.

[jsteele]

jsteele wrote:
Moreover, the payroll tax holiday is a trojan horse. When it expires, we will be right back where we are now with the Republicans calling ending the holiday a "tax increase" and will be screaming that Democrats want to raise taxes. Or, the Republican House will simply refuse to transfer funds from the general fund to the social security trust fund. Either way, it puts Social Security at risk, which has been a Republican goal all along.

If you don't believe me on this, maybe you will believe Republican Senators and Congressmen?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/tax-cut-deal-a-hidden-thr_n_793983.html

"Once something like this goes into place, a year from now, when it expires, it'll be portrayed as a tax increase," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). So in a body like Congress, precedents matter and this is setting a precedent. I think that certainly is going to create some problems down the road if it passes."

"Once you bring a rate down, if it goes back up, people will feel that. They'll feel their paycheck being less and that argument" -- that letting it expire amounts to a tax hike -- "eventually is bound to be made," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

"There's always a tendency to continue those things... Once something comes in, it's very difficult to change it," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio.) He then volunteered, without prompting, that "It would be detrimental to the Social Security system, especially when it's in bad shape."

Obama the negotiator: Agree to something that will destroy the cornerstone program of the Democratic Party, declare it a victory, and attack your supporters.

[Anonymous]

I am not unhappy w/ it, but I do think the payroll tax holiday is not a great idea. I think it would have been better spent on infrastructure spending but of course anything that's "spending" vs. "tax cuts" will be vehemently opposed by the R's as their inhumane stance on the unemployment insurance has shown. So for what they were likely about to get and given the stakes of letting the R's continue to hold the unemployment insurance hostage for this, I suppose it's tolerable. I just think it's a shame that there's no way to make the insanity of the R position as clear to people as it would have been if taxes had gone up and unemployment was cut off right at Christmas all becuase Rs refused to back down on tax breaks for those making more than 1M a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of the SS 2% break for a year? Is that considered part of a stimulus plan? What effect will it have on the Social Security fund? I just don't get why they are messing with that.

Putting more money into rich peoples' pockets just means they will save more. Possibly it will cause employers to hire more workers, although because economists generally believe that employers pass the tax onto workers (in the form of lower net wages), and they wouldn't make adjustments for the single year this tax holiday is in effect, the impact is unclear.

But it's probably also part of a Republican strategy to lower the payroll tax permanently, because when 2012 comes around and the tax holiday expires, people will object. That is, there's a side goal of undermining Social Security in any way possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading today's WaPo analysis of the 990B compromise bill, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE believes that the GOP won. The Dems tacked $2.50 of added spending on for every $1 the GOP championed in maintaining the Bush tax rates for all filers.

I have never accused journalists of being good at math, but I am taking this graphic at face value: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/tax-cut-compromise/index.html?sid=ST2010120800383 It seems light on the red and heavy on the blue.

So you're with O'Donnell when she compared extending unemployment benefits to Pearl Harbor?

The best stimulus comes from giving money to people who don't have it, like the unemployed. You can count on them to go right out and spend their benefits on necessities like food and clothing. Unlike tax cuts for the rich, who will probably save it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading today's WaPo analysis of the 990B compromise bill, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE believes that the GOP won. The Dems tacked $2.50 of added spending on for every $1 the GOP championed in maintaining the Bush tax rates for all filers.

I have never accused journalists of being good at math, but I am taking this graphic at face value: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/tax-cut-compromise/index.html?sid=ST2010120800383 It seems light on the red and heavy on the blue.

So you're with O'Donnell when she compared extending unemployment benefits to Pearl Harbor?

And that came from where? Don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:The best stimulus comes from giving money to people who don't have it, like the unemployed. You can count on them to go right out and spend their benefits on necessities like food and clothing. Unlike tax cuts for the rich, who will probably save it all.

The only people talking about tax cuts are the Dems. I am talking about the status quo. Frankly, I would be happy to let ALL of the temporary rates expire, and hope gridlock accomplishes this. Next, I am in favor of a Congress that proposes a budget that has us living within our means. The more you feed the Federal Govt. beast, the more they want and NEED, and anyone who object is inhuman, wants to let babies starve, yadda yadda yadda. And anyone who thinks spending for needed food and clothing is stimulus is nuts. Stimulus creates jobs so people can work and buy food, clothes, and a few incidentals that they don't NEED but want, maybe a new dishwasher, or new carpet in the house.