obama extends bush tax cuts

1. 52

   Alex Friasposted 13 years ago

   Question.  If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently.  Where was his voice in favor of the Bush tax cuts 6 months ago, or even 2 years ago..?
   
   Yes Obama has always maintained that he will not raise taxes on the middle class.. the 250K and under bunch.  But the fact still remains that it was Bush who gave the middle class those very popular tax cuts.. so popular even that former president Clinton helped Obama to endorse extending the cuts.
   
   I supported Obama.  He was rightfully critical of Bush economic policies, including the tax cuts and the deficit, but if after 2 years we've come to realize that Bush's tax cuts are the so called economic reality, then one has to ask.. What was all the fuss about George Bush about?  and why not just let the Republicans lead? 
   
   If you don't have the political gumption to reverse Bush's very popular tax cuts, then please stop blaming Bush for the deficit.  The deficit belongs just as much to Obama now.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not taking any political sides here.  Obama very simply compromised his beliefs for the benefit of the middle class.  And he made some friends on the other side.  Bush's was a war deficit.  Obama's is a bailout deficit?

      replyreport
      1. 52

         Alex Friasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure Obama made friends on the other side because of the tax cuts.. People (on both sides) know that he only agreed to extend taxes for everyone because republicans had him by the stones..
         
         He would have been well within his right to fight even though he ran the risk of letting the cuts expire..
         
         Bush's cuts represent about 60% of the deficit (so I've heard) Obama extended the policy, therefore he owns the deficit also.  He can't blame Bush anymore.  My criticizm of him (Obama) is that he he extended the tax cuts which he was very critical of.
         
         Regarding the bailouts (both Bush's and Obama's) I don't think they had much of a choice.  They could have, in addition, wound down those banks that were reportedly "too big to fail".

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Man of Honourposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If you wanna see what I have to say about Georghe W. Bush's new book decision points view my blog at
      
      http://hubpages.com/hub/texasbush?done

      replyreport
2. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   I'm more curious to know where the Tea-Bag protests are?
   
   This Tax deal will cost more than Obamas' stimulus. Where are the crowds de-crying the spending?
   
   Where is the concern for "the grandchildren"?
   
   What happened to the outrage?
   
   Very confusing.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What's confusing about it?
      
      Republicans got to stop the scheduled tax increase.
      
      Democrats got to give away more money.
      
      Everybody gets something, so nobody squawks.  Nobody's outraged.
      
      Except the grandchildren, and they have no voice yet.
      
      Politics at its best. 

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ANARCHY!!!!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      imagine if this were a company who had to ACTUALLY balance it's budget (unfortunately, it's only legal for the government/fed to make money out of thin air).
      
      They'd be bankrupt and have no support from investors with idiotic planning like this: "Hey, let's spend MORE money, but generate LESS of it!! BRILLYANT!"

      replyreport
   3. 61

      EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A simple concept, but one you seem incapable of grasping...
      
      Cutting taxes does not cost anybody ANYTHING.
      
      --It lets you keep more of what you EARN.
      
      --Less of what you are already entitled to is taken.
      
      --It "robs you less".
      
      --It's as if I'm saying "you're costing me too much money because you only let me take 9 dollars instead of ten".
      
      When tax cuts are viewed as "costing too much", then it's obvious we have an out of control spending problem.
      
      Well, maybe not obvious enough

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "When tax cuts are viewed as "costing too much", then it's obvious we have an out of control spending problem. "
         
         Wurd to that.

         replyreport
      2. 52

         Alex Friasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree and disagree.  This is what I mean.  Yes tax cuts are very popular.. Keep more of what you make, which eventually gets spent into the economy.. I get it. 
         
         But when Bush implemented his tax cuts, I don't think he envisioned this recession.  He was working with a 200 billion dollar surplus.   
         
         One may say.. reduce spending (not tax cuts) and you'll reduce the deficit.  Everybody is in favor of reducing spending but no one actually wants to cut anything. 
         
         Who has the political guts to reduce military spending, reduce medicare spending, increase the social security retirement age, in other words.. all of the recomendations of the deficit commission..
         
         Gov Cristi (NJ) seems to be the only polititian holding office that is demonstrating how serious he is about deficit reduction.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There has been and continues to be a flawed perception of money on the part of the free spending, free taxing government.  Government has no money when it wants to spend money it must do one of three things, tax it away from its owners, borrow it or  print it.
            
            Each of these is a bad idea in its own way.  Taxing it from its owners suppresses the use of that money in ways that are better informed and more rational than government is capable.  Borrowing it squeezes other forms of investment and lending out of the market again forcing money out of the hands of those better informed and better able to decide how, where, when and why to use that money.  And third and perhaps most troubling and damaging, print it, this result in inflating the money supply resulting in the decreased power of the money in the hands of individuals meaning yet again that government is reducing the ability of those best able to use that money.
            
            George W. Bush was a free spender and undid the value of his own tax rate reductions.  Obama is even worse.  He seeks to tax away large portions of the money held by individuals, borrow huge sums and encourage the creation of money in circulation.  We had better pray for a continued slow growth until these inflationary actions have been adapted to by the over all economy because if the economy suddenly begins a rebound than we will see a collapse of the currency and hyper inflation.

            replyreport
            1. 52

               Alex Friasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I actually think inflation.. (not hyper inflation) is a problem we'd like to have at this point.  It's easier to correct inflation than a protracted recession. 
               
               I think we're going to have to face the reality that the Federal Reserve is likely to increase interest rates in 2011.  The rate of 0.25% is simply unsustainable over the long term.  The 0.25% rate has done nothing good for the economy.
               
               Raising rates will create an influx of capital into the currency markets as the dollar may become once again attractive.  I think that will actually be key to the economic rebound.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Protracted recession is a direct consequence of government interference in the economy as is inflation.  Inflation does not relieve recession and can make it even more painful and intractable.  In the previous incarnation of rabid liberalism, the Carter administration, we had high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates resulting in a misery index.  Carter, much like Obama, was praised for his intellect and went on to demonstrate the "intellect" is a poor qualification for the presidency.

                  replyreport
                  1. 52

                     Alex Friasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I must agree that intellect is a poor qualification for the Presidency as Reagan's lack of intellect did not hinder him from being a strong and effective leader.  Good point. 
                     
                     I'm not suggesting that inflation is the answer to the recession, but rather that it is only a problem we'd rather have at this point.  This recession is the worst since the end of the Great Depression.  Inflation as a result of a strong rebound isn't the worst possible scenario.
                     
                     The rebound of the dollar I think has to be a key part of any recovery.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Your Reagan dig demonstrates a lack of historical understanding.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           No, I kind of agree with him.  Reagan was not stupid, but he was not an 'academic'.  Yet he had an strong insight into how to lead effectively, or at least how to inspire.
                           
                           What I haven't seen is a suggestion to stop loaning and giving money to foreign aid of any kind, except perhaps in the case of natural catastrophy.  Surely this would save us somewhere in the hundreds of billions.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Reagan wasn't an "intellectual" in the same way that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln wasn't and intellectual.  He contemplated and wrote about our nature as humans, our government and natural law - these may not be academic but they are an exercise of intelligence in which few "intellectuals" engage.
                              
                              We were never intended to be a people to be run by an elite body of intellectuals - lets leave that to the Europeans - we were meant to run our own affairs with little interference from those who "know better."

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Absolutely agree with you, ucv.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 61

                                 EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 YEP

                                 replyreport
               2. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  inflation creates recessions. F.A. Hayek got a nobel for showing this.
                  
                  Look up "the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle" and enjoy having your head blown.

                  replyreport
         2. 61

            EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It all boils down to changing the role of government.

            replyreport
   4. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think there is a "wait and see" atmosphere right now. I'm sure that if there isn't an attempt to repeal healthcare, stop the dream act and end earmarks. They will become very vocal again. Keep in mind, we are still in a lame duck session. Their candidates are not seated yet.

      replyreport
3. 60

   readytoescapeposted 13 years ago

   Buying into the rhetoric and confusing political philosophy with governance is just the beginning of the argument and where the waters get muddy.
   
   The rhetoric – The New Democratic point of view is not getting a tax increase for the government coffers is equivalent to increased spending.
   
   Political Philosophy- The New Democrats have always made the assumption, and fully believe that the money you earn, belongs to the government, and only they should decide how much to allow you to keep. Therefore, in their view the government should rule the people.
   
   The opposing viewpoint is that government is to serve the people and that your money is yours and you are only taxed for the services the people decide the government should provide. Therefore this view is government should administer the wishes of the electorate.
   
   This whole taxation argument is about what the New Democrats can’t get their hands on, your wealth, property and liberty, all needed to obtain the utopian dream of redistribution of wealth and the creation of ultimate power and control via dependence on government.
   
   The main difference between the two philosophies can be defined with two letters, “I” and “N”
   
   Dependence or Independence
   
   This tax extension agreement is by far the best decision made to date by this administration and is the right thing to do for the entire electorate, including the unemployment extensions. Which by the way is the only spending in the agreement, and spending that really is necessary.\

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Alex Friasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "The opposing viewpoint is that government is to serve the people and that your money is yours and you are only taxed for the services the people decide the government should provide. "  Good point.
      
      The question is what are the services that the government should provide.. or cut?  No one really campaigns hard on the specifics. 
      
      And by the way, this tax extension was NOT a decision made by this administration.. it was a reaction.  The decision should have been made months ago.. Obama agreed to extent taxes to all after Republicans had him by the you know what..
      
      Bush gave us the very popular tax cuts.. that no one seems to have the stones to let expire..  I think they should be made permanent rather than argue about this once again 2 years from now..
      
      By the way.. I think Republicans would have extended unemployment benefits regardless..

      replyreport
4. 61

   Sundaymomentsposted 13 years ago

   I think Obama has copied what other presidents have done. He has followed other administrations policies instead of writing better policies to better our nation. The division we have seen is caused by the present administration trying to copy other policies (just adding a few twists here and there and calling it new). The old polices never worked in the first place; so why would he think that it would now?
   
   The only he has changed was our healthcare however now this new policy has landed in the court system as being unconstitutional.
   
   So in with the Tax cuts they are just about Obama does not know what he is doing so his answer to save the nation is to once again copy cat the other administrations before him.
   
   I have not seen any new tax strategies that are worth mentioning within his administration; nor do I see that his administration can write new policies in regards to a new innovated plan.
   
   We did not elect a fearless leader; however we have elected a fearful follower.
   
   I have not seen one campaign promises fulfilled yet that Obama stood on to win his election. What I do see is an administration that has caused a nation to divide within itself.

   replyreport
5. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Obama wanted to keep the cut up to a certain income level, around $250,000 a year.  But when the Reps wouldn't allow that he only had the choice of keeping it all or ending it all.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Even 1 million wasn't enough for them! Deficit ballooning on the backs of "the grandchildren".
      
      Rich get evermore richer til they explode, like that Blueberry Girl in Willy Wonka.
      SAME REASON!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         All of a sudden you're worried about the deficit?
         
         Where were you when 787 Billion was borrowed to pay for a stimulus failure?
         
         You are right about the greed though.
         
         Washington DC is full of greedy politicians.
         
         Democrats and RINO's.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Stimulus did not fail. And these tax-bonuses will cost MORE than that.
            
            And for what?
            More private wealth, that's what. We will borrow for that. Grandkids will pay for that.
            
            It's not only politicians who are greedy.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               They won't cost anything.  The concept of spending is separate from the concept of taxation.  Government spends.  That costs money.  Government doesn't tax citizens.  That does not cost money.  Government spends too much, wants to tax citizens to pay for spending.

               replyreport
      2. 61

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         A much more effective way to directly reduce the deficit and the cause of deficits, national debt and economic recession would be for the federal government of the United States to take ten years off leaving only the military in place.  It isn't hard to imagine the halcyon days that would follow.

         replyreport
6. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   The Obameter Scorecard
   Promise Kept 123
   Compromise 39
   Promise Broken 24
   Stalled 85
   In the Works 232
   Not yet rated 3
   PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.
   
   Pretty dam good if you ask me. And it is not Obama who has divided the country, it is the crybaby right. Sorry-deal with it!
   I remember when Obama was elected....everybody was excited. Mayors, guv's, politicians....all hyped up for "working together" to get us out of this mess.
   Then came the NO. the endless NO. No to anything and everything. EVEN stuff that was their idea.
   And the smearing, and denigrating, and lieing, and meanness of those psy-ops.
   
   Yeah---you people have a distorted view of history, IMO.
   AND distorted version of patriotism.
   It used to be un-American to criticize a pres...now, you can say he wants to destroy America, and be proud of yourselves!
   
   No, the crybabies ruined it all. And look--they got their way again!
   
   More destruction, more money to Switzerland, More big bonuses for crooks.
   While America has to beg for crumbs for the other 95% of us.
   
   Privitize/Commercialize/Sanitize.   Demoralize.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wake me up when someone comes up with a real plan to pay off the U.S. debt and deficit cause I would love to hear how 200 trillion can be paid back.  Yes thats 200 with a T trillion!!
      
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o … le1773879/

      replyreport
      1. 52

         Alex Friasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         We can start with shrinking the trade deficit with China..
         
         Raise the Federal target rate.. 0.25% is simply unsustainable and the dollar as a result has been depreciated..
         
         Reduce the military budget.  Do we need to spend 700 billion a year on defense?
         
         Drastically cut Medicare.. What politician has the gumption to run on cutting medicare..? 17% of the voting population are senior citizens..
         
         Increase the social security retirement age to 67.. again.. good luck with that one
         
         Eliminate foreign aide to Isreal.. we shouldn't have to buy Isreal's loyalty (they have universal healthcare by the way)..  What politician has the stones to do that.. ?
         
         It's great to talk about reducing the deficit.. But actually taking action to reduce the deficit is a separate matter.. who that is in office is really serious about making those kinds of tough decisions..?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Not a lot of people, that's for sure. But in case you haven't heard of him yet...
            
            RON PAUL

            replyreport
            1. 56

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               He would be the BEST ONE TERM PRESIDENT EVER!

               replyreport
   2. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      lmc - how was all this no-saying possible with a Democrat majority?  Reps are not in power - yet.  And I remember the great divide beginning when Gore LOST the election.
      
      Politifact is an interesting resource.  It seems Obama has kept a lot of his promises, 99% of which involve spending money.  Some good, some not so good in my view.  I'll leave the 1% crumb for anyone who wants it.  It seems you do an awful lot of crying yourself.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Oh stuff it .
         
         Here's what happens with your kind in power:
         
         "Tea Party types are furious at the GOP leadership, including both Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker-to-be John Boehner, for setting what they regard as an accommodating tone even before the GOP takeover."
         
         An accomidating tone before the GOP takeover.....Can't have that. Can't be accomidating or BI-PARTISAN, can we?
         
         John Kasich: "We are in power now...you don't HAVE a say!"
         
         Welcome to a repeat of history....on steroids.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'll repeat this - I am not a member nor am I a supporter of the Tea Party, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or any other party or their affiliates.  I am an independent thinker, not easily swayed by any particular group.  Again, I'll ask you a direct question:  How can you blame the Republicans for blocking bills when they were in the minority?

            replyreport
         2. 60

            WalterDamageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "We are in power, you don't have a say!"
            
            Sounds remarkably like the Democrats talking since 2006......of course now since they have to deal with that whole shoe-on-other-foot thing, suddenly it's time to be "bi-partisan".
            
            Must be one of those things that makes you go "hmmmm.."

            replyreport
            1. 61

               couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you for backing me up on this.

               replyreport
7. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Dave Kemp, Republican incoming chair of House Ways and Means sounds like a reasonable man.
   
   He actually acknowlegded that the middle class has born most of  the burden of what the gvt pays for.
   
   That is encouraging.
   
   He want to simplify the tax code, get rid of exemptions, and lower the rate.
   
   Problem is--who's exemptions do you get rid of?
   
   I think we know where his party stands...firmly with the Uber Rich, above all else.
   
   He has a fight on his hands....from his own party! But at least he's not a raving partisan, like Demint.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow!  I'm impressed.  Really.

      replyreport