Real economists agree -- It's a sh*tty deal...

[ProudDad]

The Effort to Claim That Economists Support Obama's Capitulation on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
William K. Black
Assoc. Professor, Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City; Sr. regulator during S&L debacle (A REAL regulator!)

------------------

You know the administration is desperate when it creates a web page citing economists who support its capitulation on taxes.

The web page cites the support of five economists. Peter Cardillo, the Bank of America, Greg Mankiw, and Wells Fargo (are the second through fifth economists on Obama's list). Who are these supporters and why is the administration proud of their support? Cardillo is an economist for an investment firm, Avalon Partners. Avalon's web site states that it specializes in "wealth management" for "affluent investors...to meet the unique needs of high net worth individuals...." Yes, the wealthiest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans -- the truly, uniquely needy.

The administration's web site gives pride of placement to Avalon Partners' support of Obama's decision to support the extension of Bush's dramatic reduction in the taxes its ultra-wealthy clients will pay. That tax reduction will make Cardillo and his senior colleagues at Avalon Partners, themselves among the wealthiest Americans. Obama's capitulation on tax breaks for the richest one percent of Americans is worth tens of thousands of dollars personally to Cardillo and hundreds of millions of dollars to Avalon's clients. Mr. Cardillo does not support Obama's capitulation -- he rejoices in it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-effort-to-claim-that-_b_794862.html

[dkf]

1. What its his estimate on the impact?

[ProSense]

3. This isn't about impact

it's about sniping.

When Krugman leads off his point in this way:

On the straight economics, the tax deal is worth doing. But the history of the past two years drives home, if anyone doubted it, that economic policy must be considered from a political economy point of view; that you have to think ahead to how current policies affect the environment in which future policies will be decided. And the more I work on this, the more concerned I’m becoming.

<...>

...it's not about the benefits of the deal, it's about something else.

[ProudDad]

15. Of course, YOU read the article, eh?

you like links, here are a couple for you... :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x559158#559196

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x559158

[karynnj]

43. But was Krugman ever a regulator or associate proffesor at the Uninversity of Missouri?

I mean what does he have other than the Nobel Prize in economics and being a Professor of Economics at Princeton.

[Enogero]

58. if only considering benefits, and not history or politics

we need to http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php">hold him accountable for not advocating for single-payer

[ProudDad]

12. The article is about the fact that Obama's deal is such a piece of shit

that he has to dig up republican, corporate "economists" to justify it...

Read the article...interesting bedfellows Mr. Obama has chosen...

[ProudDad]

18. Your direct question has been dealt with in other threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x554364

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9741387

[dkf]

31. Actually since this author was disputing the economists from the private sector

I thought he might have a different number.

But really what he is attacking is the use of economic grouwth to support the tax plan.

[ProudDad]

93. "economic growth" is no longer a viable option...

Thanks to the brief heroin fix (or rather, "growth hormone"?) of cheap fossil fuels, humans have overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth and are now consuming Her muscle tissue at a rate that the Earth is incapable of replenishing...

The dismal assumption that we can "grow our way" out of resource depletion, Catastrophic Global Climate Destabilization caused in no small part by using fossil fuels and the final collapse of the Ponzi-scheme "economy" that assumes infinite growth on a finite planet is insanity...

In about 50 years, I see a MUCH more drastic fragmentation of "USAmerica" into clusters of villages with loose regional associations trying to survive on an entirely different planet...

An Earth with a dramatically decreased potential to support the MUCH lower population of humans who completely LOATH their previous 7 generations for what (we) they have done...

[ProSense]

2. Do real economists

have a better deal that can pass the real Senate?

[tekisui]

4. No 'deal' needed. Let the sun set.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. How Is The Economy Going To Look Next Year Witholut Any Stimulus At All, Even A Flawed One?

And if it is the way it is now why should we asume the election results in 2012 will be any different than they were in 2010?

[ProudDad]

20. It will be about the same...

Since the corporate industrial growth system fueled by the heroin fix of cheap fossil fuels and a Ponzi scheme masquerading as an "economy" is DONE...

There may be a few dips and gullies during its precipitous slide but it's pretty much DONE...

[Telly Savalas]

90. If you're arguing the tax policy makes no difference

then it's pretty fucking stupid to be upset about it.

[Enogero]

63. why is it either or?

iow, either shitty trickle down stimulus vs none at all?

could the president not design a separate stimulus that would pass muster after these cuts expired?

your argument depends on false dichotomy

[Telly Savalas]

91. What's a preferable alternative that will make it through the Senate?

For all the bitching that's been done here, this question has never been answered. Until it has, then it's not a false dichotomy.

[dkf]

10. What is the impact on economic growth?

My gut wants us to lapse this tax also but I do think for those in economic difficulty that would be bad.

[ProudDad]

26. No jobs means no jobs..

Those who are employed will have to cut out one visit to wal-mart per month to buy plastic crap that will end up in the land fill withing 6 months...

Might have to buy used, buy local or buy LESS!

The Masters of the Universe will STILL be outsourcing and downsizing and buying the Congress and the W.H. so everything else will be pretty much the same in the phony "economy"...

The REAL economy of local resilience and supplying actual human needs is up to us...

[dave29]

52. Proud, going to try and find a sliver of common ground

I am employed, and would request you not assume we all go to Wal-Mart and buy plastic crap that will wind up in a landfill or around the necks of marine life. Some of us who are Democrats are proud environmentalists, like you appear to be. Some of us are frugal, because we have to be. Some of us absolutely need the help of others.

We can't just turn our backs on the unemployed because we don't like "what should have been" or the system as it is today -- it is simply irresponsible. As you say building communities is up to us, but that does mean we have to work TOGETHER, and that inevitably means compromise, unless you want to wipe everyone who disagrees with you from the face of the planet.

We won't make progress by peeing on everyone else's lot simply because we don't like our own.

[ProudDad]

94. We ALL

including myself...

Are forced by circumstances...

Like fish who must exist in water...

To "support" the dominant paradigm that's killing us...

Whether we want to or not...

But for most, there are some easy things that can be done to starve the beast...

And minimizing one's purchases at the most evil corporations is one of them...

The "System as it is today" is destroying our Earth and causing mental destabilization of the human population along the way... Railing against it (and working against it to the best of one's ability) is a survival trait...

And I don't really know where you get this: "We won't make progress by peeing on everyone else's lot simply because we don't like our own." :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

100. +1000 nt

[dave29]

101. an inartful way of saying

it is not helpful to ones cause to attack everyone who disagrees with you, which we are all doing here.

[ProudDad]

106. I must agree that

we all seem to contribute to the noise at times... :hi:

"to attack everyone who disagrees with you, which we are all doing here." Yep...

[laughingliberal]

99. +1000 nt

[ProSense]

11. I don't agree

As I said before, Democrats could have held the tax cut vote prior to the election. The House rejected that strategy. Now, it's time to deal, and the best they can do is be upset by the deal.

Not holding the vote before the election was likely a fine strategy for the House because, after the election, they did pass the middle-class tax cuts only.

The problem is that before the bill goes to the President, it has to pass the Senate, which last Saturday was unable to pass the middle-class tax cut only (four Democrats voted against. Even when they raised the threshold to $1 million it failed with five Democrats voting against it.

A better strategy, if they wanted a deal at this late stage, would have been to try to identify what a better deal would look like to gain the votes needed in the Senate.

So Congress has to either negotiate a better deal now or later.

Later, means the deal will be negotiated by Republicans. They will not need a single Democratic vote in the House, and there will be five more Republicans in the Senate.

They will ensure that all the things that are currently being held hostage by them are still held hostage in the next Congress.

They will negotiate a deal that includes more tax cuts for the rich, middle class tax cuts, a lesser deal for the unemployed and none of the stimulus provisions.

The President will have to sign or veto a bill with relief for the middle class and unemployed. It's unlikely that the GOP will change their package to accommodate the President and Democrats when they are the majority in the House.

Republicans are assholes, and they are not going to act otherwise. This is not shut the government down, this is about tax cuts for the middle class and stimulus provisions. Any package that Republicans negotiate will be accepted by Americans as "the best we can do," especially when they are calling the shots in Congress.

The Democratic Congress needs to make the deal better now because it's unlikely to get better in the next Congress.

Almost a week has gone by since the Senate plans were voted down last Saturday.

Reid plans a vote on a slightly changed bill on Monday.

The Congressional Black Caucus basically issued its version, which is basically the President's bill minus the tax cuts for the rich.

If the Senate passes a bill on Monday, will the House support it?

Which one of these alternate plans will pass so that low-income, middle-class and unemployed Americans are protected?

[ProudDad]

7. Dup - computer malfunction...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. What Happens In 2012 If The Repubs Get To 51?

You could have a Republican president, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate where all it takes to pass a bill is a simple majority.

Where would the checks and balances come from?

Respectfully, you act as if a Repub Senate is inconceivable when the last one was only four years ago...

[ProudDad]

22. The only reason it's not already that way

is that the Democrats did NOT have the cajones (or the principles) to exercise the filibuster against most of what the republicans passed when they had both houses and the W.H.

If the republicans (when the republicans at this rate) get the Senate again, they WILL change the rules if the Dems try to play the obstruction game with the filibuster...

The check and balance on government was SUPPOSED TO BE EXERCISED at the BALLOT BOX by an educated electorate (according to Jefferson)...

Although, the Senate along with the Electoral College was set up to be a check on Public Power -- and it admirably serves that end...

To expect corrupt politicians, elected with corrupt corporate money into a corrupt system of lobbyists and rich special interests to "do the right thing" is madness...

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

14. So you posted nine links to the same point:

"51 votes to change the rules in the Senate..."

The bills in the Senate failed to pass. That is the real world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Could You Imagine The Carnage If The Repubs Win The Pres And Senate With The Fifty One Vote Rule

There would be no checks and balances. They could privatize the Department Of Defense and outshore SS and Medicare...

[ProudDad]

28. They will do it anyway if the Dems get up on their hind legs

and try to obstruct the Senate the way the pubs have...

[ProudDad]

24. 51 votes to change the rules in the Senate...

What part of that don't you understand!??!?!?!?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=558195&mesg_id=559112

[ProudDad]

27. And you alert on it...

How weenie of you... :puke:

[emulatorloo]

17. A Senate Rule change would require a CLOTURE VOTE too. Republicans would BLOCK IT

There would have to be 60 votes for cloture before the rule change could be voted on.

Republicans would kill this just like they killed everything else.

[ProudDad]

30. No it does not...

http://oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/3721-Senator-Merkley-starts-petition-to-change-filibusters.html

[emulatorloo]

35. Yes it does. . . you need cloture to get to a vote on rule changes,

The only exception would be if somebody invoked the "nuclear option" and that is not going to happen. We are going to need the filibuster someday.

[TheKentuckian]

47. For what? Everything will be sold and traded away well before then.

[TheKentuckian]

49. Not at the start of a new session you don't. The majority has a free hand to make rules as they see

fit at the start of a congress.

The first piece of evidence that our side is complicit as hell is after a record level of obstruction in the last congress that leadership left the rules that enabled such shenanigans in place despite knowing we had an agenda to pass with a new President.

The bastards wanted to play the game, it gives cover to doing the bidding of the wealthy.

[ProudDad]

104. No you don't

:eyes:

It's forcing 51 votes that IS the "nuclear option"...

Keerist!!!

[ProudDad]

5. This is cute...

"Professor Mankiw, Chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, is the next supporter that the Obama administration highlights. Mankiw was a leading apologist for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He even defends the wealthy when they become wealthy through fraud. He infamously responded to George Akerlof and Paul Romer's paper demonstrating the dominant role that "looting" by S&L CEOs (accounting control fraud) played in causing the debacle, by opining that "it would be irrational for operators of the savings and loans not to loot." Mankiw blamed the S&L debacle on excessive regulation and was one of the architects of the de-supervision that permitted the current crisis to occur."

[JamesA1102]

13. Robert Greenstein: Congress should approve this package

CBPP Statement: Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, on the Tax Cut-Unemployment Insurance Deal

The deal between President Obama and Republican leaders on tax cuts and unemployment insurance has two substantial positive aspects: its surprisingly strong protections for low- and middle-income working families and its stronger-than-expected boost for the economy and jobs. But it also has two deeply disturbing negative features: not only the extension of the high-end income-tax cuts, but also an egregious estate-tax giveaway that Senator Jon Kyl demanded for the estates of the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans who die.

Congress should approve this package — its rejection will likely lead to a more problematic package that does less for middle- and low-income workers and less for the economy. Then, in 2012, when the economy should be stronger, the President should make clear he will veto any legislation to extend either the high-end tax cuts or the weakening of the estate tax beyond the estate-tax parameters that were in place in 2009, and he should take that case to the country.

The Positives in the Package

In several respects, the package exceeds the expectations we and many other observers had set when the negotiations began.

■ The 13-month extension of federal unemployment benefits is a major accomplishment. Only a few weeks ago, the House fell short of passing a three-month extension. The 13-month extension will prevent 7 million jobless workers from losing essential income support, without which they would have to cut their purchases substantially, causing the loss of many more jobs. The Council of Economic Advisers recently estimated that an end to these benefits would cause the loss of 600,000 ­jobs and cut already-inadequate economic growth by 0.6 percentage points by the end of next year, quite a large amount; Goldman Sachs recently made a similar estimate of the impact on economic growth.

■ The package continues for two years all of the 2009 Recovery Act improvements in the Earned Income Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit (which helps students from low- and middle-income families afford college), and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit. These measures are simultaneously effective stimulus policy, desirable social policy, and admirable anti-poverty policy. They encourage work over welfare and help more Americans obtain a college education; they provide sound stimulus by putting money in the hands of hard-pressed working families that will spend it; and they substantially reduce child poverty.

■ The package also contains a one-year reduction of 2 percentage points in the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax; workers will pay a 4.2 percent tax on their first $106,800 in wages, rather than 6.2 percent. This provision, which would replace the current “Making Work Pay” tax cut, would raise workers’ take-home pay by $120 billion in 2011 (relative to current law) and consequently should provide some economic boost.

These provisions would protect low- and middle-income workers and their families and, by boosting their incomes, also preserve or create substantial numbers of jobs. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, estimates that federal unemployment benefits generate $1.60 in economic activity for every dollar in cost; the refundable tax credits generate about $1.20 to $1.40 in activity for each dollar in cost; and the payroll tax reduction generates about $1.25 for each dollar in cost. In other words, all of these measures rank high in “bang-for-the-buck” effectiveness.

In this part of the package, the White House achieved everything it sought for low- and middle-income families. It apparently did not compromise on these issues.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3340

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Alice Rivlin, Whose Opinion I Respect, Said It's A Decent Deal

Not a horrible one and not a great one but a decent one.

[ProudDad]

32. Rivlin...I remember her

she used to work for the triangulator-in-chief, right?

"Decent" for whom?

Certainly not for those of us on Social Security as a sole means of support...!

[emulatorloo]

39. I don't know what Crazy Ass bloggers you are reading

but this package does not affect your social security benefits

[ProudDad]

92. Cutting the payroll deduction is the camel's nose under the tent

Actually, it's ANOTHER camel's nose under the tent in the constant democan/republicrat attacks on the Safety Net.

[totodeinhere]

44. Social Security was never meant to be a sole means of support.

If it's all you have, you are in trouble.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Then about half are in trouble and about 2/3 or more are close enough that they might not get by

without it without going to a pure subsistence mode of operation.

[totodeinhere]

54. Yes, that's the sad part. And many are in this position because they simply did not

have sufficient cash flow to be able to contribute to some kind of retirement fund. Or the retirement plan they thought they had was taken away from them by their employer.

But the fact remains that for most people, Social Security alone isn't enough to support a decent lifestyle.

And yet there are calls to cut back Social Security even more.

Edited for typo.

[ProudDad]

105. How very fucking elitist of you

to decide how I should have lived my life within the Vampire Capitalist system...

That fucked me over in my profession time after time with layoffs and downsizing and RIFFs and outsourcing...

And robbed me of my savings a half dozen times with LONG periods of unemployment...

How very fucking elitist of you to flaunt the fact(?) that you're so fucking good at gaming the system that you don't need that pittance of a Social Security Check that keeps 30 or 40 million of us away from starvation and homelessness...

How very Libertarian of you... :puke:

[JamesA1102]

51. Anyone not blinded by their ideology

will say the same thing.

[ProudDad]

29. DLC Bullshit!

You've just reinforced Professor Black's point...

Only corporate "economists" (the vast majority of that dismal breed) like this shit...

Even then, most agree that it WILL NOT BE an effective stimulus...

So it even FAILS at what Obama is trying to sell it to be...

[JamesA1102]

50. Robert Greenstein is not afiliated with the DLC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenstein

[Phx_Dem]

73. You clearly have no idea who Robert Greenstein is. No surprise.

:crazy:

[Phx_Dem]

71. Robert Greenstein is a very progressive economist. In fact, progressive House

Dems don't make any decisions without first seeking his advise and opinion, said Lawrence O'Donnel on Morning Joe on Friday.

Even the progressive idol Krugman acknowledged it was as good as they would get so they should pass it.

It'll pass,but I just hope it passes before House Dems add so much pork to it costs more than $1 trillion.

[Egnever]

19. News alert!

People dissagree!

[dave29]

40. strange, that

!

[niceypoo]

23. But, but...

...obscure mayors and governor's support it!!

[frazzled]

25. Actually, many real (and liberal) economists disagree and urge passage

Here's Dean Baker, uber liberal economist (written Tuesday, after the compromise package was revealed):

I

n the Bush years the Democratic leadership made the battle over the Bush tax cuts the holy grail of American politics. People were thrown out of the party if they ever referred to the tax cuts without an adjective like "costly," "reckless," or "irresponsible."

To be sure, the tax cuts were a bad use of public money. As we know, they disproportionately went to the wealthy. This money could have been much better used rebuilding infrastructure, promoting renewable energy and conservation, or even as tax cuts oriented more toward middle class and moderate income families.

However, the tax cuts were not the economic disaster portrayed in the Democrats' attacks. (...)

Unfortunately, the political elites' fixation on the tax cuts and the deficits led them to ignore the economy's real problems. (...)

For this reason, extending the tax cuts to the richest 2 percent for another 2 years is not especially harmful. It will hand money to people who will spend at least some it, thereby creating demand and generating jobs.

Of course we would be much better off if the $50 billion going to the rich each year instead went to other purposes, such as preventing cutbacks by state and local governments or rebuilding infrastructure, but if the question is whether the economy will do better with the tax cuts or a smaller deficit in 2011 and 2012, the answer is that we will unambiguously do better with the tax cuts to the rich. (...)

So, progressives should not be happy about giving more money to the richest people in the country, but it is not the end of the world either. The key focus should be on getting the stimulus needed to boost the economy. It is outrageous that 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed because of the incompetence of the people who design economic policy

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/07/in_defense_of_giving_money_to_rich_people/

Robert Greenstein, Director of CBPP:

The deal between President Obama and Republican leaders on tax cuts and unemployment insurance has two substantial positive aspects: its surprisingly strong protections for low- and middle-income working families and its stronger-than-expected boost for the economy and jobs. But it also has two deeply disturbing negative features: not only the extension of the high-end income-tax cuts, but also an egregious estate-tax giveaway that Senator Jon Kyl demanded for the estates of the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans who die.
Congress should approve this package — its rejection will likely lead to a more problematic package that does less for middle- and low-income workers and less for the economy. Then, in 2012, when the economy should be stronger, the President should make clear he will veto any legislation to extend either the high-end tax cuts or the weakening of the estate tax beyond the estate-tax parameters that were in place in 2009, and he should take that case to the country.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3340

David Leonhardt says a number of liberal economists support the plan:

Tellingly, economists and Democratic policy experts were largely pleased with the deal. Forecasting firms on Tuesday upgraded their estimates for growth and job gains over the next two years. (...)

nd left-leaning policy experts said the package did more to create jobs than they had thought possible after the Republicans’ midterm election victories. Robert Greenstein, Lawrence Mishel and John Podesta — who run prominent Washington research groups that range from liberal to staunchly liberal — all offered praise for the package. Of its estimated $900 billion-plus cost over two years, roughly $120 billion covers the high-end tax cuts and the estate tax cut, $450 billion covers Mr. Obama’s wish list and $360 billion covers the tax cut extensions both parties favored.

“People are kind of venting their disappointment and acting as if the administration did a terrible job in the negotiations,” said Mr. Greenstein, who runs the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “But it didn’t. The mistake the administration made — and it was a serious one — was that it should have dealt with this well before the election.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html

Don't just give us something from one professor at one offshoot of the U of M in Kansas City. Do some broader research, and you will find that many liberal economists think this plan, although it (necessarily) contains things we don't like, and Obama doesn't like, is on the whole much better than anyone thought and needs to be passed.

[ProudDad]

33. DLC Bullshit!

And you're all buying into the Big Lie that the ONLY way to pass anything is with 60 votes in the Senate...

That's where the Democrats fucked up 2 years ago--by allowing that RECENT rule to remain in force...

When they could have ended it, done the work of The People and still have major majorities in both Houses...

[emulatorloo]

36. What is this, the McCarthy Era?

[Hippo_Tron]

56. How could they have ended the filibuster?

A rule change requires a 2/3rds majority. Yes you could completely ignore the rules and change them by force the way the Republicans threatened to with the "nuclear option" but there is no mechanism within the Senate rules to change Senate standing rules without a 2/3rds majority.

[ProudDad]

96. 51 votes to change the rules in the Senate...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4653961&mesg_id=4654520

[Hippo_Tron]

103. Nothing in your link demonstrates that a rules change requires 51 votes

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. Amen

[libmom74]

37. an honest question

why can't the middle class only tax cuts and UI benefits be passed through reconciliation like the original Bush tax cuts with a simple majority vote?

[AllyCat]

38. So, if two banks that got bailout money think this is a great deal,

that tells me it really IS a shitty deal. For us anyway. Not for them.

[dave29]

41. Just being straight up here

You will find "real" economists that agree with every position on this issue. I have yet to find a cabal of economists that are "real" that agree on anything but their standard position.

[karynnj]

42. The article does not back your subject line

This is ONE economist, an associate professor at the University of Missouri, attacking the economists the Obama administration had on their website. Black, is not a prominent or influential economist - to my knowledge.

Note that it is as silly if I made the argument that HP had to go to a pretty minor university and even then got only an associate professor. The fact is that among respected economists there are different opinions - and they are not even comparing the deal to the same things.

The fact is that Paul Krugman said in terms of the economics it is good - his concerns were political. Robert Reich has also commented on this in somewhat positive terms - as have other well known, economists respected in the economic community.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. The Consenus Seem To Be Although Flawed The Bill Is Better Than Not Doing Anything

.

[karynnj]

55. That's what I have seen as well

There are questions on whether the deal can be made any better and still pass.

[ProudDad]

97. The consensus is that

Climate change is nothing to be really worried about...

Cheap fossil fuels will always be available...

The Earth is an infinite source of resources and an infinitely large pit within which to dump our wastes...

The USAmerican model of a corporate state is the only way to live...

[totodeinhere]

45. Translation - "Real economists" are the ones who agree with the OP.

All other economists are not real. I got it.

[Pisces]

53. Are these "real economists" like the "real scientist" that claim global warming is a hoax??

[Enogero]

57. and totally unnecessary

last time i checked, you didn't need to give something away to get unemployment extension passed. they've done it before by simply making republicans look bad when they voted against it

[mtnsnake]

59. You are absolutely correct

Using unemployment as a bargaining chip was lame and unnecessary. One did not depend on the other, but that's how they painted it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Gentlemen

The last unemployment extension took five weeks to consummate because they had to wait for Joe Manchin to be sworn in to replace the departed Robert Byrd. This is because they only had two Republican votes.

We are supposed to be the most informed of the most informed and some of us don't know even the basic facts.

[mtnsnake]

64. The tax issue and the unemployment issue are not joined at the hip

but thanks for making us aware of our ignorance. lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. So We Should Just Throw UI Extension Out The Window?

Please help me understand your position.

I think many, many folks , including our representatives are being willfully ignorant of what can be accomplished and criticizing those who want to accomplish something.

[mtnsnake]

70. I never said anything close to that

and there is no need for you to put those words into my mouth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. If You Didn't I Apologize

Please show me a path to unemployment insurance extension when ninety five percent of them opposed it the last time and now we need six more than the two we got.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. I'll Answer My Own Question

If The Grand Compromise fails the Repubs will still need five votes to get their beloved tax cuts for the rich. Expanding UI will probably be the price they have to pay to get the Democratic votes they need....

[mtnsnake]

77. Accepted

As to your other request, could you please first tell me how we're supposed to pay for the federal unemployment extension when we are flat broke?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. We Spent Over A Trillion Dollars In Iraq And We Can't Find $60 Billion For The Unemployed

We finance unemployment insurance by borrowing the money, the same way we borrowed 800 billion dollars for Obama's first stimulus or did you oppose that.

The last president to cut spending and increase taxes during a recession was Herbert Hoover.

And UI insurance is the most effective stimulus because the unemployed spend every penny of it.

[mtnsnake]

82. I'm not a huge fan of stimulus spending programs, although I'll take Obama's word

that is was necessary, and I hope it pans out better than it has so far. I'm more of a pay as you go person. Always have been. If we couldn't afford it, we'd go without it until we could pay for it. By we I mean me and my wife. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. It's Like The Big Dog Said Yesterday

We have two problems; a nasty recession and a structural deficit but you can't begin to solve the latter untl you solve the former. The deficit is a symptom of a sick economy and not the cause because tax receipts are falling because so many people are making no or litttle money.

[Enogero]

66. yet they passed, making a deal unnecessary

thus, there exists proof this deal was not the only method of extending unemployment benefits

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. They Passed With Two Republican Votes

Now we need eight.

When forty percent of the unemployed rely on unemployment insurance for ninety percent of their income you are playing God with their lives.

[Enogero]

76. "Now" -- as in what date?

:)

oh wow....so sad the party didn't see this unexpected change of congress coming so suddenly. so sad they got "shellacked" and lost their mandate, due to a failure to effectively govern.

i still don't think this is necessary to pass the UI extension. what i do see is some people doing everything they can to create the perception and conditions that its necessary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Now = New Congress

.

[Enogero]

84. how convenient

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. Convenient For Who

The ironic thing is they will end up in the new Congress trading tax cuts for everybody in exchange for extending UI insurance which would put us back where we started at.

[Enogero]

87. convenient for anyone who wants to make this compromise look necessary

kicking the can down the road helps a lot of pseudo-liberals save face

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. If It Doesn't Pass

If it doesn't pass we will end up with something similiar but even more to our disliking.

The Repubs will try to pass another tax cut bill. Adding UI extension will be the price they have to pay to get the five Democratic senators they need.

The crappy thing is next year the Dems are going to be put in a position where if they want to stop tax cuts for the rich they are going to have stop tax cuts for everbody else too and deny the unemployed an extension.

People really need to game this out...

[ProSense]

60. "you didn't need to give something away to get unemployment extension passed"

With these Republicans you did. They killed the additional $25 weekly benefit from the stimulus after blocking the bill for two months.

Republicans don't care, and they will do whatever it takes to screw people.

[mtnsnake]

62. Have you ever heard of "standing your ground" when you're the Party in power?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. What Does That Mean In The Current Instance?

We tried last Saturday to get a tax cut bill excluding the rich and failed twice.

[mtnsnake]

74. Have you ever considered that letting Bush's tax cuts expire, period, might

have been a better choice than dealing with the devil?

Check out the graph. It wouldn't have killed any of us.

http://www.smartonmoney.com/bush-tax-cuts-set-to-expire-in-2011-will-you-be-paying-more/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. No. The Tax Cuts Don't Affect Me.

I made about eight hundred bucks last year. UI extension affect my gf because her UI represents 95% of our income.

But it's not about me.

[Enogero]

68. "With these Republicans you did"

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5582558/unemployment_extension_2010_bill_is.html">yet these are the same republicans that opposed the last extension

[zulchzulu]

79. Krugman was impressed with what Obama was able to get through

He's a REAL economist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Thank You

He's a Nobel Prize winner too...

And not some associate professor at a community college (JK)

[laughingliberal]

102. Yeah, a REAL economist who won't be forced tor rely on a degraded SS system in his old age. nt

[Kaleva]

89. True Scotsmen say otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I think it rather funny that to counter the claim that economists support President Obama's tax deal, "real" economists are brought forth.

[ProudDad]

95. "economic growth" is no longer a viable option...

Thanks to the brief heroin fix (or rather, "growth hormone"?) of cheap fossil fuels, humans have overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth and are now consuming Her muscle tissue at a rate that the Earth is incapable of replenishing...

The dismal assumption that we can "grow our way" out of resource depletion, Catastrophic Global Climate Destabilization caused in no small part by using fossil fuels and the final collapse of the Ponzi-scheme "economy" that assumes infinite growth on a finite planet is insanity...

In about 50 years, I see a MUCH more drastic fragmentation of "USAmerica" into clusters of villages with loose regional associations trying to survive on an entirely different planet...

An Earth with a dramatically decreased potential to support the MUCH lower population of humans who completely LOATH their previous 7 generations for what (we) they have done...

[laughingliberal]

98. K & R nt