Would we be discussing deficits and sequesters if Bush tax cuts had not been extended?

[kentuck]

Would deficits even be an issue?

Of course, if deficits were not an issue, we would not be discussing sequester and cuts to programs like Meals on Wheels, cancer research, or HeadStart.

Was your taxcut worth it? That is why we are cutting Meals on Wheels, you know? If we had given up our tax cut, then the money would be in the budget for these programs.

As we now see, there is no free lunch. The Bush taxcuts, if we are going to pay down the debt, are a heavy burden to bear. They have created problems which everyone should have seen coming.

[riqster]

1. I think it would have happened sooner.

The Reeps want cuts to everyone but themselves and their paymasters.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. I'm pretty sure that we would. This, and most everything we love to argue

about in politics, is about fighting to take and consolidate power. So, if the cuts had been allowed to expire and the revenues were that much higher, they would still be trying to take more away from the people that earned it in order to give it to the thieves that want it.

The debt would still be perpetual and there would still be a deficit, and the thieves would still be trying to steal money that doesn't belong to them.

[kentuck]

5. I think extending the Bush taxcuts

is the primary cause of most of our political debates and arguments at this time. I do not think we would have been discussing sequester or cuts to social programs if they had just been allowed to expire. Just my opinion.

[Sheepshank]

3. Apparently you would rather have had the millions of unemployed starve

and live under a viaduct.

Did you conveniently forget why the cuts were extended?


Of course you didn't conveniently forget....this is nothing more, nothing less than another Obama piss post. You just haven't gotten around to naming names yet.

[kentuck]

6. I haven't seen you complaining about the 11% unemployment cuts in the sequester?

That was a temporary fix and millions are still in the same boat today. Those are the types of issues that Democrats fight for, not surrender for.

[Sheepshank]

14. Seriously?

you foresaw the continued slow job growth even back then? R-I-G-H-T.....totally not buying it. You re trying to say that today's unemployment rate should have played into a decision made two years earlier?

That is just about the worst red herring you hav thrown out today. You are so full of it.

You propogating questions and scenarious today without a full disclosure of the scenarios at the time a decision was made is not only misleading, but out right feeding lies. And you know it.

[kentuck]

20. Three months later...

these same long-term unemployed people were back on the street again and you said nothing...?

OK, Mr Blue Eyes, what scenarios changed with extending the Bush taxcuts. Show us your brilliance. And please don't tell us that your eyes are brown?

[Sheepshank]

23. your slip is showing, and one task for today is simply to point that out.

you knew within 3 months that the 2 year job growth would be.....? So much bull crap, so few shovels

[haikugal]

4. NO...

we wouldn't be having this discussion whilst people suffered....it's a discussion the right always pushes when they are out of power so they'd try but it wouldn't have the pain that we now are privy to. This is happening, has happened with a Democratic president in office...WTF?!

[dkf]

7. Well it was certainly much more likely we would get a sequester if we kept the cuts.

If anyone didn't get that I fear for their reasoning skills.

[bemildred]

8. Of course not. nt

[JoePhilly]

9. Yes. Next question.

[kentuck]

10. Next question?

Can you explain why?

[winter is coming]

11. Yes. The cut-government fans would be squawking over a smaller amount, but they'd

still be using "debt" as an excuse to cut social programs. OTOH, if expansion of Homeland Security or the military were on the table, no price is too high to pay for our freedoms!

[kentuck]

13. But they would be squawking mostly about the Bush debt...

rather than the Obama debt.

[Sheepshank]

16. ahhhh, and you finlly put a name to it.

regular as clockwork.

[kentuck]

17. WTF?!!

are you talking about??

[Sheepshank]

19. From post #3

...this is nothing more, nothing less than another Obama piss post. You just haven't gotten around to naming names yet

[kentuck]

21. Has anyone told you?

You don't know shit from shinola.

[Sheepshank]

24. You seem to enjoy throwing out insults with some frequency...I'm getting used to

your pathetic temper tantrums

[kentuck]

25. Well, sheep shit,,,

Thanks for your comments.

[Sheepshank]

32. still at it, big boy? n/t

[kentuck]

38. Do I smell something?

Let me check the bottom of my shoes...

[Sheepshank]

39. Most people don't step in shit.....too bad you don't have the brain cells to figure it out. n/t

[Lasher]

12. No, most of us wouldn't.

Elimination of the Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars would probably create a surplus. This becomes even more likely if you eliminate effects of the Bush recession.

[kentuck]

15. In hindsight...

I would say that was probably Obama's biggest mistake of his first term? It has brought untold headaches to him from the right-wing Republicans.

[Sheepshank]

18. This is the biggest mistake...or is the one you posted yesterday or the day before the biggest?

are your posts listed in this "lesser to biggest" mistake order?

[kentuck]

22. You have your opinions.

By the way, this is his second term.

[geek tragedy]

26. There was VERY VERY VERY LITTLE support amongst the American people

to see everyone's taxes go up.

We can argue the merits of doing nothing vs cutting a deal either in late 2010 or late 2012, but ending the Bush tax cuts for lower and middle class taxpayers was against the clear will of the public.

[dkf]

27. Bush tax cuts vs federal spending. That was the choice and the people chose their tax cuts.

[geek tragedy]

28. Well, no, they chose both.

Its' the Republicans who are insisting on slashing spending.

[dkf]

30. If they had a clue they would realize that wasn't going to happen.

Seemed obvious enough to me.

[geek tragedy]

31. Republicans would demanded to slash spending even if tax rates went up.

Republicans don't care about deficits, they care about making America ungovernable.

[kentuck]

35. But Repubs were not worried about the Bush deficits..

only the Obama deficits.

[kentuck]

34. I have no idea how people thought they were going to pay for the taxcuts??

Without cutting programs that the people needed. Of course, they needed their taxcuts. Many had not had a meaningful pay raise in years...But, I would be curious to know what the present deficits would be right now if the entire taxcuts had been allowed to expire and the wars had already ended? I assume we are still spending about $150 billion per year in Afghanistan?

[kentuck]

29. And now we are making the cuts...

I thought at the time that the Democrats should have done what they had always done and fought for the unemployment benefits and dared the Repubs to vote against them. It was just before the election so it would have been good politics, also. But we folded our hand and lost the election. I do think it had a direct bearing on the outcome.

So now, we do not have the revenues for programs like Meals on Wheels or Headstart and we cannot raise taxes to pay for them. We had the taxes in our hand. All we had to do was nothing. So now we are paying the price, in my humble opinion.

[dkf]

33. We needed the Bush taxes reinstated and more to afford all that government provides.

I don't understand why even on this board of politically attentive individuals people don't get it.

[kentuck]

36. I agree.

If people want meat inspectors, ATC's, Headstart, Cancer research, etc.... then they have to pay for it.

[dkf]

40. Taxes are the price we pay for the government we want.

If we support more government services we should support paying more taxes, and I don't mean voting for the other guy to pay more, I mean us agreeing to pay more for the things we believe in.

[Johonny]

37. Yes

I haven't seen an economic model that suggested in the recovery the economic revenue growth was enough to offset the current deficit. Remember not only did Bush cut revenue, he increased spending, and the recession saw a net decrease in revenue due to a net decrease in jobs. All of which means we would have hit the debt ceiling eventually.

More to point even when Clinton was president and he created balanced budget, we had a huge economic growth spurt, amd were on track to pay of the debt. The Heritage foundation was still calling for more cuts to "save" social programs. The other side basically plays the same cards over and over. There is no reason to think they wouldn't play the same ones.

Like most people, my tax cut is mostly been offset by my stagnant wage, inflation, and tax increases at the local level to offset decreases in federal spending. I understand the spirit of your message but I actually don't think Obama's tax extension deal factors heavily into the sequestration. Even if Obama had created a surplus somehow they'd still want to cut Social security and medicare and other welfare programs. Why, because they always have argued against them since before I was born. The actual economy of the united states doesn't factor into their policy making.

[Recursion]

41. It would have been a 200 billion dollar increase on those making less than $200K per year

We could well have gone back into another recession the way the UK did.

(EDIT: I originally said "2 trillion", but that's over 10 years. 200 billion or so per year)