Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
03:58 PM on 12/13/2010
This debate is going to reveal some major weaknesses in both parties. Who decided to make SS a part of this deal? Who decided to make this a holiday issue?
Shame on you dems and repubs. This is so typical of passing the buck.
photo
AGammaRaye
Awake!! Independent.
03:57 PM on 12/13/2010
Just says it all that the goppers' website reflected the victory within minutes...
Dems need a tuneup and reality check...goppers we already know.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabela
like animals better than most people.
03:50 PM on 12/13/2010
I don't understand how keeping tax rates the same will create jobs when it has not over the last 10 years. Clinton created 26 million jobs, Bush 1.08.
photo
tinri
Republican women suffer from Stockholm Syndrome
03:56 PM on 12/13/2010
It won't. But it may create a mini economic bubble as more consumers have a little more to spend... assuming they don't use it to pay down past debt. The problem is that the products that they have the money to spend on, aren't made here. So most jobs created will be offshore.
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
04:39 PM on 12/13/2010
Well, people won't have 'more' to spend, when this is the existing tax rate, but extended.

Snerd
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
03:57 PM on 12/13/2010
Yes and if the WH were at all interested in narrative, wouldn't that have been their bumper sticker campaign against the upper end extension?

Snerd
03:48 PM on 12/13/2010
Dont let the tax cut pass!!!!
this is all for the profit of the richest!
frankiebarbella
hell hath no fury, like a bureucrat scorned!
03:54 PM on 12/13/2010
How does everyone keeping more of what they earned, won, or inherited only profiting for the rich?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:10 PM on 12/13/2010
Bush lowered taxes on stock profits/capital gains to 15%.

Paychecks are taxed at 10, 15, 25 and 35%.

Working class people pay more than the 15% rate that the richest pay.

Working class must pick up the slack cause the rich pay 15%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
media1
03:56 PM on 12/13/2010
My taxes are not getting CUT. The rates are staying the same as the last 10 dang years.
Oh, I'm wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy below 250K. As in wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
below.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Billar
Fighting The Lies From The Right
03:46 PM on 12/13/2010
Is Obama heading for one term?
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
03:49 PM on 12/13/2010
Yes but what is that term ... 'Weak' ... !?

Snerd
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PWM
Eisenhower Republicans are liberals
04:03 PM on 12/13/2010
Hard to say. Largely depends on what the GOP offers to run against him.
photo
Mike Gibbons
Happy wanderer
03:45 PM on 12/13/2010
By leaving the cuts in place - we have decided that these cuts are working. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
03:50 PM on 12/13/2010
Yes ... but it's too intellectually taxing to come to that conclusion ... !

Snerd
photo
BraveWarrior
The truth will set you free, like it or not
04:57 PM on 12/13/2010
That why we keep voting for democrats and how's that working? This is what Marx referred to as the 'contradictions of capitalism'. The only logic is to make sure the rich suck out all of our blood. That is what they do. That is how they have turned our world into the living hell it is.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
03:43 PM on 12/13/2010
Congress makes law, not the President. He just signs or vetoes, it's in the Constitution. Dems control the Senate, had two years to pass Obama tax bill like House did.

Senate Dems failed, now they either get a better bill, pass Obama compromise, or raise everyone's taxes and be defeated in 2012, turn the government over to the Republicans. Same with public option: Senate Dems failed. Maybe it's because of Senate rules and obstructionist Republicans, but it certainly isn't Obama's fault. Dems in Congress shouldn't point fingers, except at themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
media1
03:57 PM on 12/13/2010
Soooooooooo................................The republican congress balanced the budget under the Clinton rein.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:11 PM on 12/13/2010
No, the executive branch spends money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:13 PM on 12/13/2010
FACT: Republicans controlled the entire govt between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007 and turned a budget surplus into massive record deficits.

Here are the only OFFICAL budget numbers which come from the CBO - (United States Congressional Budget Office):

FY 2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS under Clinton
FY 2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS under Clinton
FY 2002 - 158 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
FY 2003 - 378 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
FY 2004 - 413 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
FY 2005 - 318 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
FY 2006 - 248 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
FY 2007 - 161 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
FY 2008 - 459 Billion deficit under Bush with Dem congress

Source : CBO Historical Budget Data
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf

Please note: The united states budget does not operate on the standard calander year but on a fiscal year which runs from Oct 1 to Sept 30 of the next year. For example, the fiscal year 2011 budget started on Oct 1st.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PWM
Eisenhower Republicans are liberals
04:03 PM on 12/13/2010
Good point.
03:40 PM on 12/13/2010
What is the Republican argument on how tax cuts stimulate the job growth? Will the tax cuts be applied to big/small businesses affecting budgets to open more job hiring? Or will the tax cuts just be given to these business owners' profits? Are they essentially the same thing?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deltalady
03:57 PM on 12/13/2010
They don't have to argue. They just state what they'll agree to and then wait for the president to say "OK."
Maarten Wentink
99%er, 53%er & Job Creator
03:39 PM on 12/13/2010
Integrity is what is at stake here, following through on ones statements and promises. Integrity does not mean you will accomplish everything you say you will do, it does however mean you will do whatever you morally and legally can to follow through on those words and that is where Obama falls short of the mark.

"It's not what we eat but what we digest that makes us strong; not what we gain but what we save that makes us rich; not what we read but what we remember that makes us learned; and not what we profess but what we practice that gives us integrity.”
Francis Bacon, Sr. (English Lawyer and Philosopher. 1561-1626)
03:39 PM on 12/13/2010
The vote for the tax breaks is a vote for the status quo and the status quo right now is that these tax cuts do not create jobs and indebts our country further. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks this is going to somehow 'fix' things believe that doing that same thing over and over again will somehow produce different results.
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
03:59 PM on 12/13/2010
... How many times have you made that argument ... !?

Snerd
03:38 PM on 12/13/2010
I have respect for Joe Scarborough and, as usual, Arianna is the voice of reason. Obama is only concerned with his re-election and satisfying his campaign contributors, NOT the long-term interest of this country - just like every other politician. Obama may say that he fought for health care and tax increases for the wealthy, but the truth is he did nothing to fight for the American people. The Republicans can now point to Obama's tax bill and state that, according to Obama, the Republicans were right all along and that Obama obviously agrees. He's blown it.
03:51 PM on 12/13/2010
You need to point the finger at Congress and Senate. They create the laws, not the President.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deltalady
03:59 PM on 12/13/2010
If he were stronger, or had those around him willing to fight for the guiding principles that have always been the Democratic party..fairness and reason...both the Congress and the Senate could have been pressured to bring forth a bill that would work. But it's much easier to let someone else do his work for him.
11:43 PM on 12/13/2010
While that may be true, it is the president's responsibility to LEAD, and he's been very little of that.
photo
jazgr8
Ok, I give up, you win.
03:36 PM on 12/13/2010
They are going to have to increase taxes sooner or later if they want to lower the debt and maintain services and entitlements. They just don't want to do it now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Homer Strump
03:32 PM on 12/13/2010
This tax cut deal is going to be like luv canal. They'll plant grass and build a school on top of it and think everything will be ok. We can expect the gradual erosion of social security, destitute 99ers and even richer millionaires and billionaires.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Economike
03:42 PM on 12/13/2010
Once the country goes down the tubes being a millionaire or billionare won't help you, look at Mexico.
photo
jazgr8
Ok, I give up, you win.
03:29 PM on 12/13/2010
This is a bet at the Roulette Table.

The number one means to ultimately lowering deficits and national debt is significant and sustained GDP growth. That growth drives employment and higher tax revenues to the government as a result of that increased employement.

So the bet is that this bill will spur GDP growth. Even if it does, lowering the debt still requires that Washington would use the bulk of the increased tax receipts to pay down the debt. I haven't actually seen them do that in my lifetime.

Right now they seem to be doing everything in their power to spur growth. Keeping taxes low, extending unemployment benefits, printing money and buying treasuries with it and keeping interest rates at near zero.

What happens if it doesn't work.
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
03:41 PM on 12/13/2010
The next thing ... a devalued U$.

Snerd
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PWM
Eisenhower Republicans are liberals
04:04 PM on 12/13/2010
That has been happening for a long time.
03:55 PM on 12/13/2010
The whole thing is a roulette table, because economics is not a science, it is the collective decisions of millions of people and all these 'economists' on both sides have 'theories' on what is going to change someones mind. If the government initiates a ton of direct spending that will light the overall fire and get things moving on the other side is if you let people keep more of their income they will start spending and get things moving. Problem is no one can predict the future and nothing says either will really work.

All we know is, at this point either approach will add DEBT and most ideologues, left and right are HYPOCRITES.

I almost fell over when now Paul Krugman is railing on deficit spending after umteen articles on how the EU austerity is crazy, government can't worry about spending, blah blah. And then the right after using the deficit as the main talking point has no issue with spending more than the original stimulus.

It may not work, it is all a gamble and a big one at that.
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
04:09 PM on 12/13/2010
emak: "... on the other side is if you let people keep more of their income they will start spending and get things moving. Problem is no one can predict the future and nothing says either will really work."

Snerd: (R)ight ... 10 years of tax cuts that have NOT grown the economy doesn't let us draw any conclusions according to you .... BRILLIANT!

Snerd
03:28 PM on 12/13/2010
There's a lot of info published on the multiplier effect econmists estimate that various types of stimuls will create. Here's a link to one such site. Note the difference in stimulatory effect between tax cuts and various forms of direct government spending:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/03/cbo-on-stimulus-multipliers/1126/