The current economy is why many of us were upset about the Bush/Obama tax cut extension.

[Dawgs]

We knew that extending them would cause our economy to collapse for everyone (just not this bad, this fast).

We knew that giving in on the tax cuts to extend unemployment insurance was not worth it in the long run.

We knew that it would not help get people back to work. In fact, we knew that it would make things worse for jobs.

Now, the UI extensions are about to run out and we still have the Bush/Obama tax cuts for another year and a half (and probably much longer).

:(

CONTRACT FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM
http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/moveoncontractad.pdf

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Actual people on actual UI might tend to differ. n/t

[Dawgs]

5. Actual people still without a job and about to lose UI might differ. n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. The UI they're losing millions of them would have lost six months or more ago...

...for a principle.

Tough sell.

How exactly would have not extending the Bush tax cuts in December have improved the jobs outlook today, only seven months later?

[Dawgs]

15. Bush tax cuts will affect jobs for years. Not just now.

Who knows what it would have done if NOT extended at the beginning of the year.

What we do know is that the Bush tax cuts are the largest contributor to our debt (http://huff.to/qZ8Jgo). We also know that the Republicans were able to hijack the messaging on the economy because of the debt. And, we know that the spending cuts agreed to last week could cause the loss of millions of jobs (http://bit.ly/nCSapQ).

So, Bush tax cuts equals Republicans getting Democrats to cut spending, which equals loss of millions of jobs.

Still worth it?

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. You didn't actually answer the question, I noticed....

[Dawgs]

20. Apparently you didn't.

First, I said that no one knows how the extension would have created more jobs now.

Second, I provided two links that shows how the extension of tax cuts for the rich will cause the loss of millions of jobs NOW.

So, maybe more jobs now if ended, but definitely fewer jobs because it was extended.

Question answered, again.

[Davis_X_Machina]

25. "First, I said that no one knows ...

...how the extension would have created more jobs now."

But that's what I asked. So the answer is 'No, I have no idea how taking the deal extending the Bush tax cuts would improve the present employment situation.' And it would have chopped UI. But it's net-beneficial in the long run.'

So you're demanding immediate sacrifice now, for some improvement -- perhaps some definite improvement -- in the future.

It's another form of austerity, just in this case an austerity move with a better prospect of accomplishing something in the future that the present austerity moves.

[Dawgs]

26. "perhaps some definite improvement"

Fine. You're interest is defending the rich and destroying the economy for years to come so that the unemployed today can get short-term benefits, but never have a chance at getting a good job.

Got it.

http://huff.to/qZ8Jgo

[Davis_X_Machina]

27. Assuming...

...economic downturns are caused by a collapse in aggregate demand, how does letting the Bush tax cuts expire and foregoing an extension of UI in December increase aggregate demand?

If they don't, you don't do it in the middle of a recession.

UI has just about the highest multiplier of any economic stimulus.

[Dawgs]

35. Sorry. I didn't understand until now. You like the Bush tax cuts. n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

36. Yes. And if you could keep them in place for say...

...the lowest nine income deciles, and eliminated them for the top decile, I'd like them even more.

Which is more or less what Obama's been pushing since he was elected.

[Dad Infinitum]

39. Supply side economics DECREASES wages

Extending them for two years extended the recession for two additional years. The CBO has stated on multiple occasions that ending the Bush tax cuts and doing nothing else would put us in primary balance in about 4 years. Extending them extended everybody's suffering, and they just might be the straw that broke the country's back.

[uponit7771]

30. Goal post meet movers...

[Dawgs]

32. Hasn't moved for me. n/t

[mtnsnake]

2. Yup, you pretty much nailed it concerning the ridiculous tax extensions for the rich

They should have expired, period. Things went from bad to near catastrophic since their extension. K&R

[Supersedeas]

8. the priorities in approach would have not been more clear to the American people

instead the President was put in a position where once again he would have to compromise on core principles in order to achieve the bare minimum.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Not that I'm defending extending the tax cuts

but I doubt that they were all or most of the reason for the situation we're in right now. After all, the Republican Tea Party came into power in the House a month later. I blame the Republican Tea Party for what's going on now more than the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts and think that getting the UI extension was worth it in the end IMHO. I don't want to see them extended again and, given what we know about how the Republican Tea Party would handle the raising of the debt ceiling, I think that maybe we should've thrown the raising of the debt ceiling into the deal as well but you know what they say about hindsight. :eyes:

[polmaven]

37. But somehow you think that

14 or 15 million more people on the street with no money to spend would have rescued the economy...Now that makes all sorts of sense...NOT!

[vi5]

3. Yep...

Just like we HAD to give in to the Repubs on everything they wanted in the Debt negotiations because if we didn't then we might have our AAA credit rating lowered and it would cause a crash in the stock market.

Good thing we dodged that bullet, huh?

We are a country run by morons. And believe me, THAT is clearly bipartisan.

[ProSense]

4. "We knew that extending them would cause our economy to collapse "

The tax cuts extension didn't cause the economy to collapse. It unnecessarily increased U.S. debt for the benefit of the rich.

The revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire would have been beneficial if put to good use, but the economy is suffering because Republicans refuse to address job creation and additional stimulus.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[JoePhilly]

7. Change the argument?

Any time there is a democrat in the white house, the GOP screams about the deficit, and the media plays along.

And the rating decrease wasn't because of the debt, it was because the GOP was threatening to default. The S&P even said that.

[Dawgs]

9. Only reason the GOP had an argument was cause the DEMs extended everything that caused the deficit.

Wars & Bush tax cuts.

The S&P said that not enough revenue (Bush tax cuts extended by Obama/Democrats) was also the problem.

[ProSense]

19. The GOP

don't have an argument.

[Dawgs]

22. Okay. n/t

[mtnsnake]

10. Are you implying that the tax extensions for the rich did NOT backfire completely?

Unless some people can't face reality, anyone, even those who didn't realize it back in December, should realize by now that the tax extensions for the rich have done nothing but put us deeper into the hole, a hole that was already way too deep to begin with. In terms of economic recovery, the tax extensions for the rich resulted in nothing but a catastrophic impact for for everyone with the exception of the super wealthy.

[ProSense]

14. No,

I stated it quite clearly: the negative consequences of the tax cut extensions are about the long-term debt, not the current economy.

The short-term impact of the deal: extending unemployment benefits, shoring up Medicaid, expanding the EITC and other aid help real people now.

Republicans are the problem.

[Dawgs]

18. Uh, the Republicans got Democrats to cut good programs NOW using long-term debt argument.

Debt ceiling deal could cost 1.8 million jobs (http://bit.ly/qtZcpY)

So, short-term impact is NOT helping real people now, and Obama/Democrats deserve much of the blame.

[ProSense]

24. Hmmmm?

"Debt ceiling deal could cost 1.8 million jobs"

This isn't the tax cut extension and has no relation to the short-term impact I mentioned. Also, "could" is not a definite, and the full impact of the deal will not be decided until the committee wieighs in.

Also from the link:

The spending cuts in 2012 and the failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012, relative to current budget policy.

So now failure to extend the payroll tax holiday is going to cost jobs?

[mtnsnake]

21. Then do you agree the tax extensions for the rich that Obama signed into law backfired economically?

Republicans are the problem.

Of course they are. Very few Democrats could argue with you that they are not the problem. However, a Democratic president extending a Republican president's catastrophic tax break for the rich surely was not the answer, or even part of the answer, to economic recovery.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. We Are In A Secular Downturn

The greatest economists don't have a clue how to rescus us.

As an aside, even though my gf and I didn't get a fucking penny in unemployment extension despite working for a combined thirty five or so years because of loopholes in the base period, helping whatever unemployed people could be helped was the only charitable thing to do.

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. The really important thing, obviously,

...is to punish the rich via a fairly small increase in the top marginal rate of income tax, which with the help of a good accountant, you could probably obviate anyways.

Don't let UI having just about the largest multiplier of any stimulus, in the teeth of a collapse of aggregate demand, distract us from the real goal.

;-)

[Dad Infinitum]

13. The tax cuts were always at the core of the problem

Extending them extended the recession, maybe even turn it into a depression.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. How, exactly?

I'm not sure how ending them, which would have the effect of increasing government revenues, would have increased aggregate demand, unless that were somehow automatically translated into increased government expenditures....from this Congress.

[bemildred]

29. The government, as is obvious, spends the money, thereby increasing demand.

Whereas the well-off will invest or save most of it, to make a profit, or in case it might come in handy some day. That's how. The government and the poor are the most reliable spenders of money, so that's who you give the money to, if you want it put into the economy right away.

[Davis_X_Machina]

33. I stipulated "with this Congress"...

...and it ain't in a spending mood, you may have noticed.

[Dad Infinitum]

38. With supply side there is no demand

Demand is represented by wages. In the traditional capitalist model, supply increases in reaction to increased wages. When supply is increased without a rise in demand, the difference between the two is made up by deficit spending. That is why supply side economics will ALWAYS cause a deficit. It is the fatal flaw in the ideology, as we have seen every time it has been applied. Wages drop under this model, as we saw under the Bush administration where the average family income dropped by over $2000 over 8 years.

Supply side will drag this country off of a cliff. We will never prosper under it, ever.

[uponit7771]

28. **********BASHERS IGNORE CRAZY CONGRESS BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING************

[Dawgs]

34. I'm blaming all of them... not just Obama. n/t