News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[Al68]

Al, that's bull, and you know it. The lower economic classes are hit with regressive taxes that cannot possibly be avoided. The wealthy have a lot of ways around taxes, and are constantly campaigning for more.

Just look what happens to your claims with a little light shown on them:

____________Effective federal tax rate _______As percentage of total federal taxes
Bottom 20% _______ 4.3 % _____________________ 0.8 %
Second 20% _______ 9.9 % _____________________ 4.1 %
Middle 20% _______ 14.2 % _____________________ 9.3 %
Fourth 20% _______ 17.4 % ____________________ 16.9 %
Top 20% _________ 25.5 % ____________________ 68.7 %

Top 1% _________ 31.2 % _____________________ 27.6 %

These are from 2005 CBO and include payroll taxes. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml. And they have much more data, every bit of which shows the left to be nothing but power hungry liars.

A little light changes everything.

 

[turbo]

You have neatly side-stepped the issue. Very common with the right. The lower classes are hit with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc that they cannot avoid. Those taxes are a large percentage of their disposable income. If you live in a state like this one (5% sales tax) 5% of whatever you spend on non-exempt goods (food is generally exempt) goes to taxes. Poorer people have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on clothing, furnishings, etc, and they have an extra 5% tax burden on their purchases as a result. With wealthy people, such spending is discretionary, with poor people, it is generally anything but. For instance, when your children are growing out of their clothing, they need more clothing.

Bush imposed unfunded mandates to fuel his "No Child Left Behind", increasing many citizens' property taxes to pay for the increased cost of complying with the mandates. If you are a home-owner and you live in a typical state in which about 50% of your property taxes to the school system in your town, you have no choice about paying for the unfunded mandates. US citizens are over-taxed, but it is not the super-wealthy that are over-taxed - they are getting a sweet deal while the disappearing middle-class and the growing lower-class are getting pressed for more and more.

 

[Al68]

You have neatly side-stepped the issue. Very common with the right. The lower classes are hit with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc that they cannot avoid. Those taxes are a large percentage of their disposable income. If you live in a state like this one (5% sales tax) 5% of whatever you spend on non-exempt goods (food is generally exempt) goes to taxes. Poorer people have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on clothing, furnishings, etc, and they have an extra 5% tax burden on their purchases as a result.

First, I am fully aware of all that, and it does change the numbers a little, but not enough to change the big picture. I didn't "side-step" the issue, my post related very directly to the issue. Your relates to the issue a little bit, but it doesn't support your argument in the least.

You made an absurdly false claim. Why not just retract it for once?

 

[turbo]

You made an absurdly false claim. Why not just retract it for once?

Nay-saying and broad generalizations do not serve your argument well.

What is absurdly false? That the people who benefit disproportionately from our economy do not pay a proportionate share of taxes? That people in lower economic classes are hit by regressive taxes? That people who own houses are hit with unfunded mandates that make education very expensive?

If you want to argue, go back to my post at 3:53 and take it point by point and explain why it is "absurdly false". There is no way that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be renewed. It benefits only those who are already laughing all the way to the bank. Do you think that it would permanently damage people making nearly $400K to cause their top tax rate to return from 33% to 36%? The GOP hysteria on this subject is laughable, and it should cause revulsion in the party faithful, (99+% of whom would never benefit from the extension of the tax cut for the wealthy).

Had I not been filing jointly with my wife who makes a decent, though modest, wage in manufacturing, I would have easily broken into that top 2% for 3-4 years in a row at the top of my earnings, as a single filer. Still, I find it hard to believe that I would have been inconvenienced by a return to pre-Bush giveaway tax levels. I don't drive fancy cars, don't live in a huge, expensive house, and don't need to "keep up appearances" through spending on material things. (You can ask Astronuc if you don't want to take my word for it.) If someone earning over $200K/yr in taxable income can't absorb an increase of 2-3% in their Federal tax rate, they know nothing about budgeting, saving, or financial planning. No pity from me for the ignorant.

 

[mheslep]

I'm curious just how long US citizens thing unemployment benefits should last. http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/99ers-hope-for-tier-5-and-beyond-despite-belief-unemployment-benefits-%E2%80%9Ccan%E2%80%99t-go-on-forever%E2%80%9D/2146/" Should it be 999 weeks, or 999 months before the claims of cruelty die down?

 

[turbo]

I'm curious just how long US citizens thing unemployment benefits should last. http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/99ers-hope-for-tier-5-and-beyond-despite-belief-unemployment-benefits-%E2%80%9Ccan%E2%80%99t-go-on-forever%E2%80%9D/2146/" Should it be 999 weeks, or 999 months before the claims of cruelty die down?

Start a poll!

 

[Al68]

What is absurdly false?

Your claim that those on the right think that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes than "ordinary people".

That the people who benefit disproportionately from our economy do not pay a proportionate share of taxes?

Evidence? Every factual source I know of says they pay far more than a proportional amount, and that the Bush tax cut shifted the burden even more toward the rich.

That people who own houses are hit with unfunded mandates that make education very expensive?

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but I might agree with you on that.

There is no way that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be renewed. It benefits only those who are already laughing all the way to the bank.

Baloney. And you know it.

Do you think that it would permanently damage people making nearly $400K to cause their top tax rate to return from 33% to 36%?

No. It wouldn't damage them personally at all. The personal financial well-being of rich people is not the issue here. The left only pretends it is to avoid honest debate.

Still, I find it hard to believe that I would have been inconvenienced by a return to pre-Bush giveaway tax levels.

Again talking as if a tax cut is the government is giving someone money? I'm against the government giving money to rich people, and you know it.

If someone earning over $200K/yr in taxable income can't absorb an increase of 2-3% in their Federal tax rate, they know nothing about budgeting, saving, or financial planning. No pity from me for the ignorant.

Again, a red herring. Nobody is suggesting you pity the rich. That's just more absurdity.

If my (and Republicans') position on this issue is so wrong, you (and Dems) would have no need to misrepresent it. The beliefs you represent as "the right" are non-existent, and used for a strawman argument by the left to avoid honest debate.

 

[dreiter]

Actually the Bush tax cuts are really a non-issue in the current tax situation. What needs to happen is to have capital gains tax come more in-line with the standard tax rates. The 'regular rich' (~$100K/yr) pay more in taxes than the super rich (>$1mil/yr) because the super rich make most of their money in ways that is only taxed by the capital gains tax. This is a terrifically flawed system, and it's even more unfair to the 'regular rich' than it is to the middle and lower classes...

 

[OmCheeto]

Actually the Bush tax cuts are really a non-issue in the current tax situation. What needs to happen is to have capital gains tax come more in-line with the standard tax rates. The 'regular rich' (~$100K/yr) pay more in taxes than the super rich (>$1mil/yr) because the super rich make most of their money in ways that is only taxed by the capital gains tax. This is a terrifically flawed system, and it's even more unfair to the 'regular rich' than it is to the middle and lower classes...

What is flawed are the instructions for http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sd.pdf". My god. My investment adviser advised me not to sell my stocks(ever). I now see why. I'm going to have to hire a tax expert for about $200 to have him figure out how much money I owe on $100 worth of long term capital gains on the stocks I sold this year.

 

[nismaratwork]

What is flawed are the instructions for http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sd.pdf". My god. My investment adviser advised me not to sell my stocks(ever). I now see why. I'm going to have to hire a tax expert for about $200 to have him figure out how much money I owe on $100 worth of long term capital gains on the stocks I sold this year.

I feel your pain... specifically I feel it in the rear, but I feel it nonetheless!

 

[talk2glenn]

Actually the Bush tax cuts are really a non-issue in the current tax situation. What needs to happen is to have capital gains tax come more in-line with the standard tax rates. The 'regular rich' (~$100K/yr) pay more in taxes than the super rich (>$1mil/yr) because the super rich make most of their money in ways that is only taxed by the capital gains tax. This is a terrifically flawed system, and it's even more unfair to the 'regular rich' than it is to the middle and lower classes...

This is completely nonsensical.

Capital gains taxes apply to returns on investments. An investment is not regular income - it can lose value. Your paycheck is guaranteed for as long as you have a job. As an employee, you assume no risk.

The government taxes capital gains at a lower rate for three reasons:

1) The capital was already taxed when it was earned as income, before being invested. Investment taxes are a form of double-taxation.
2) The investor assumes all market risk, the employee none. Government rewards this risk with lower tax rates because invested capital underwrites paychecks.
3) Lower investment taxes encourages investing your money, and discourages saving it. Consumption and investment are more desirable than savings. Government has an interest in getting you to consume and invest, and in keeping you from saving.

The only thing that's flawed here is your reasoning.

I'm curious just how long US citizens thing unemployment benefits should last. Right now it is 99 weeks. Should it be 999 weeks, or 999 months before the claims of cruelty die down?

Why continue to pretend its unemployment insurance at all? Go the way of England; put 'em on the dole and guarantee a few good lifetime party voters.

If someone earning over $200K/yr in taxable income can't absorb an increase of 2-3% in their Federal tax rate, they know nothing about budgeting, saving, or financial planning.

Err...how, exactly, do you propose that an individual budget for the whims of the state? Should I start setting aside 2-3% of my income every year to a "what the heck is Congress going to do next?" fund? Does that strike you as an efficient use of my time and money? This is laughably hysterical. Just because you love to post on public forums about how much money you make, and how little you need it all, does not a representative case make.

In any event, the Treasury accepts donations. While Congress deliberates, do your conscience a favor, and write a check for 2 to 3 percent of your income to the US Treasury, with Gift to Public Debt written in the memo line, and send it to this address:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

The lower classes are hit with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc that they cannot avoid. Those taxes are a large percentage of their disposable income. If you live in a state like this one (5% sales tax) 5% of whatever you spend on non-exempt goods (food is generally exempt) goes to taxes. Poorer people have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on clothing, furnishings, etc, and they have an extra 5% tax burden on their purchases as a result. With wealthy people, such spending is discretionary, with poor people, it is generally anything but. For instance, when your children are growing out of their clothing, they need more clothing.

This is just plain false. It is true that the poor pay sales, property, and excise taxes. It is also true that they pay corporate income taxes, business license taxes, and every other "soak the rich" mandate the Democrats love to impose - indirectly, through higher prices on those clothes and that food.

Even so, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of income earners in the United States pay an effective 31% of their income in taxes. The bottom 20%? About 5%. This includes federal, state, and local taxes, direct and indirect - even indirect mandates like corporate income taxes. How did they figure it? Lots and lots of interns, probably.

 

[dreiter]

This is completely nonsensical.

Capital gains taxes apply to returns on investments. An investment is not regular income - it can lose value. Your paycheck is guaranteed for as long as you have a job. As an employee, you assume no risk.

The government taxes capital gains at a lower rate for three reasons:

1) The capital was already taxed when it was earned as income, before being invested. Investment taxes are a form of double-taxation.
2) The investor assumes all market risk, the employee none. Government rewards this risk with lower tax rates because invested capital underwrites paychecks.
3) Lower investment taxes encourages investing your money, and discourages saving it. Consumption and investment are more desirable than savings. Government has an interest in getting you to consume and invest, and in keeping you from saving.

The only thing that's flawed here is your reasoning.

I'm not terrifically excited to debate right now but such is life eh? What I will respond with is that nothing you have said justifies the current taxation rates. Capital gains incomes are essentially no-risk investments. Look at the stock market. It has continued to climb over it's 100+ year history, and it's only going to stop when the entire American economy falls. So (rich) investors with diverse portfolios are going to consistently make money with long-term investing, and they are going to pay a very low tax rate on that 'income'. This is unfair. Maybe you don't care about fairness (you a pure capitalist?) but I think that economic disparity is a major obstruction to the advancement of societies and humanity in general. If you earn more than a million a year (from ANY source) I think you should be heavily taxed.

 

[russ_watters]

I know I'm late to this gem of a thread, but one thing I love is this:

We borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts...and now people want to debate if we should keep doing it?!? Sheesh.

It wasn't just you doing it, Lisa, a number of people said similar things. The "Bush tax cuts" cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. The way the rhetoric from the left has been sounding lately, I'm wondering if people are even aware that it wasn't just the rich who got tax cuts or if that was just a knee-jerk reaction from passion instead of thought that caused the oversight in your characterization.

 

[nismaratwork]

I know I'm late to this gem of a thread, but one thing I love is this: It wasn't just you doing it, Lisa, a number of people said similar things. The "Bush tax cuts" cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. The way the rhetoric from the left has been sounding lately, I'm wondering if people are even aware that it wasn't just the rich who got tax cuts or if that was just a knee-jerk reaction from passion instead of thought that caused the oversight in your characterization.

Perhaps she was referring to relative proportions in the cuts... and the political belief that at some point you don't need to give tax breaks to those who are considered "well-off to rich" by the majority of Americans?

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps she was referring to relative proportions in the cuts... and the political belief that at some point you don't need to give tax breaks to those who are considered "well-off to rich" by the majority of Americans?

Dunno. If "we borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts" we also borrowed money from the Chinese to give everyone else tax cuts and it is Obama's intent to continue that. Seems disingenuous to cherry-pick like that, ignoring probably 90% of the "borrowing from the Chinese".

In other words, according to Democrats, it is ok to borrow from the Chinese to give 95% of Americans tax cuts, but to include the other 5% in those tax cuts is very upsetting.

I've also never heard a democrat opposing a tax increase for the rich or supporting a tax decrease. It would seem like there is always more the rich should pay. Never have I heard what I would consider fair: a situation where everyone would benefit from a tax cut or everyone would have their taxes increased.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dunno. If "we borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts" we also borrowed money from the Chinese to give everyone else tax cuts and it is Obama's intent to continue that. Seems disingenuous to cherry-pick like that, ignoring probably 90% of the "borrowing from the Chinese".

Maybe, but I can still understand the outrage, although it shouldn't distract from the other %age you mentioned.

 

[gmax137]

Never have I heard what I would consider fair: a situation where everyone would benefit from a tax cut or everyone would have their taxes increased.

The only (responsible) way for 'everyone to benefit from a tax cut' would be to decrease spending and you know that's never going to happen. Politicians (from local councils to congress) are incapable of doing it. And they will never raise 'everyone's' taxes, because then there would be nobody left to vote for them. Our system is based on compromise, which means 'get someone else to pay for what I want.'

 

[cristo]

With wealthy people, such spending is discretionary, with poor people, it is generally anything but. For instance, when your children are growing out of their clothing, they need more clothing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't see how this is a good example. Do the wealthy people not have children?

 

[russ_watters]

No, but wealthy people are apparently not allowed to have savings.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, but wealthy people are apparently not allowed to have savings.

You mention savings and children... how about this as a compromise: We tax the wealthy more than those with less, but we remove the (ridiculous) estate tax ("death tax")? That seems like a good trade when considering passing saved wealth to the next generation.

 

[Amp1]

I voted for the second choice. Tax cuts should be permanent for the 98% making below $250,000/y.

It's nice to think that the top 1% or 2% haven't much to worry about but the problem is that there is more stress involved - IMO - staying ahead of the other 98% of our population isn't easy. You have to influence individuals, as well as, governmental policies (local, state, and federal). To accomplish this PACs are needed, since the middle and lower classes (income wise) haven't the resources to nudge, bribe, or payout for this manipulation. It is left to those fortunate few who have said ability. I don't think most wealthy individuals deliberately aid in maintaining an uneven field however I think that it is a function of greed that this situation continues.

I think that corporate entities because they have a quasi-autonomous personality need to be regulated, and controlled by people who have human beings and society as their priority. So that the many disparities that exist in a (or our) society can be dealt with fairly.

This is an if, but if I was in the top 3% of income earners a 40% tax rate wouldn't bother me because I grew up having to do more with less. I.e., Giving up $100,000 from a salary of $200,000+ leaving about 90,000 to 100,000 for me would not hurt me if I don't try to maintain a high level lifestyle. And I would still be living better than I had for a majority of my life.

 

[mheslep]

It may be politically difficult to cut federal spending, but sooner or later a cut will happen, this is unavoidable. Taxes can not come close to covering the current spending load, nor should they even if it were possible. Several states managed the political will to cut their budgets recently; Mississippi by some 10%. And I mean cut, as in reduced, not an increase which was reduced from some hoped for target. Hopefully spending cuts won't occur here as they did in Greece, with the riots in the streets protesting an increase in government retirement/pension age from 50 to 52 for hair dressers.

 

[nismaratwork]

It may be politically difficult to cut federal spending, but sooner or later a cut will happen, this is unavoidable. Taxes can not come close to covering the current spending load, nor should they even if it were possible. Several states managed the political will to cut their budgets recently; Mississippi by some 10%. And I mean cut, as in reduced, not an increase which was reduced from some hoped for target. Hopefully spending cuts won't occur here as they did in Greece, with the riots in the streets protesting an increase in government retirement/pension age from 50 to 52 for hair dressers.

Lets be honest now, the system in Greece was ridiculous in the extreme, and the USA doesn't have anything like that level of social welfare or early retirement.

 

[mheslep]

Dunno. If "we borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts" we also borrowed money from the Chinese to give everyone else tax cuts and it is Obama's intent to continue that. Seems disingenuous to cherry-pick like that, ignoring probably 90% of the "borrowing from the Chinese".

I go further and point out (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2868414&postcount=17", to pay social security benefits at a retirement age 20-30 years below the life span for which those benefits were originally created, to pay $60B for a government auto company, ...". The sum total of this type of spending far exceeds the few tens of billions per year lost to revenue from the Bush tax cuts.

 

[mheslep]

For comparison:
Greek debt per capita: ~$50k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece" / 11M)
US debt per capita: ~$45k ($13.4T [federal only] / 300M)

Now absolute debt comparisons with the US are usually waived off because the US GDP per capita is relatively large. However, GDP can shrink come bad fortune and/or bad policy; the debt will not.

Regarding extreme public pensions, I'd like to see the Greek who can top this guy:

Rizzo [city manager for a town of 37,000] is set to receive a pension of about $600,000 a year, which would make him the highest-paid pensioner in the California Public Employees' Retirement fund. That amount is calculated from a salary of nearly $800,000.

-all legal.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rizzo-pension-20100904,0,3689592.story

For examples of more widespread US social welfare liabilities, see http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/speaking_of_lia.html" which reports a $7.2T liability beyond collected revenue predictions.

 

[loseyourname]

No structure of marginal tax brackets should be seen as permanent or unchangeable. Otherwise, the available tools of fiscal policy are basically rendered impotent to react appropriately to the business cycle. We should probably set reasonable caps (for instance, no activity should ever be taxed at a combined local-state-federal rate of 40% or greater), but the rates and brackets themselves should change every year.

As for the specific impact of moving the rate for income over $250,000 from 36% to 39%, it should theoretically have a short-term stimulative effect since the government will spend the money, whereas the private income-earners are saving it, but that will also hurt investment. If "investment" just means stockpiling gold, that could actually be a good thing, but only if the rate goes down again immediately when private investment in productive assets starts to recover, which probably won't happen.

Of course, normally the point of raising marginal rates is to retire debt at the peak of a recovery, and if that's all they're going to do, it's pointless, because we're still closer to the bottom than the top, it would remove any theoretical stimulative effect, and rates are too low right now to justify retiring debt in the absence of a budget surplus. Plus, the more rational way to generate a surplus is organically at the peak of the business cycle when receipts increase even at existing rates and demand for social services hits a low, not to do it at the trough of a cycle by raising rates in the face of otherwise falling receipts.

The larger problem is that we crippled our ability to respond with proper policy by running up so much debt during a boom, making us unable to do it when we were supposed to during a downturn, causing this proposal to raise taxes just to maintain existing service levels, which should never be necessary at the federal level.

 

[mheslep]

No structure of marginal tax brackets should be seen as permanent or unchangeable.

That's to the good for the government macro planner. Moving the rates around rapidly imposes a cost on business operations through a lack of predictability.

Otherwise, the available tools of fiscal policy are basically rendered impotent to react appropriately to the business cycle.

Even with fiscal room to maneuver, observation shows that is unlikely government can bring itself to pull the correct levels in the short term swings of business cycles, furthermore the fiscal economic guidance of what to do is unclear. The only clear economic lever pulling successes of the last several decades have been in monetary policy, and even there we have had mistakes (easy Greenspan money 01-03).

We should probably set reasonable caps (for instance, no activity should ever be taxed at a combined local-state-federal rate of 40% or greater),

How about 25%? Keynes himself apparently said, "25 percent taxation is about the limit of what is easily borne."

but the rates and brackets themselves should change every year.

As for the specific impact of moving the rate for income over $250,000 from 36% to 39%, it should theoretically have a short-term stimulative effect since the government will spend the money, whereas the private income-earners are saving it, but that will also hurt investment. If "investment" just means stockpiling gold, that could actually be a good thing, but only if the rate goes down again immediately when private investment in productive assets starts to recover, which probably won't happen.

Consider that the savings (instead of investment/spending) in that bracket may well be due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis" of the pending rate increases. Take away that threat, and I suspect investment and spending will start to climb again, in a matter much more likely to increase employment than when the government takes tax money out for stimulus joy ride.

Of course, normally the point of raising marginal rates is to retire debt at the peak of a recovery, and if that's all they're going to do, it's pointless, because we're still closer to the bottom than the top, it would remove any theoretical stimulative effect, and rates are too low right now to justify retiring debt in the absence of a budget surplus. Plus, the more rational way to generate a surplus is organically at the peak of the business cycle when receipts increase even at existing rates and demand for social services hits a low, not to do it at the trough of a cycle by raising rates in the face of otherwise falling receipts.

The larger problem is that we crippled our ability to respond with proper policy by running up so much debt during a boom, making us unable to do it when we were supposed to during a downturn, causing this proposal to raise taxes just to maintain existing service levels, which should never be necessary at the federal level.

The US has been unable to run up debt in this downturn? US federal debt has http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tripple-debt.jpg" Just how much additional debt did are you calling for, and to what end? To my mind there are no good examples of successful stimulation of depressed economies through government spending - not in 1990's Japan, not in the US 1930s. After this last ~$1T stimulus attempt and the resulting near 10% unemployment, deficit stimulus spending economics should warrant at the very least great skepticism, and taking for granted that fire hosing money out of a government window must stimulate the economy in all recessions borders on the irrational. Finally, the predicted revenue increase from the repeal of the proposed Bush tax cuts, even if all of it goes through, is only a fraction of the deficit gap caused by current spending ($70B/year).

 

[turbo]

The GOP is squealing about raising the marginal tax rate on the highest-earning Americans from 36-39%. They proclaim that the Bush cuts on the highest earners must be extended, despite the fact that such an extension would add ~$1Trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Extending the tax cuts to the people most able to pay them would be stupid and unproductive, while rescinding those tax cuts to the people whose wages have stagnated or fallen, and whose savings have taken a beating would prolong our economic downturn.

Those of us who have benefited greatly from our economy and our hard work should not lobby to perpetuate and extend the earnings-disparity between the rich and the poor. That's the kind of crap that led our country into the Great Depression. And yes, I was firmly in the upper 2% for several years before illness (and lack of proper accommodation for that) knocked me out of the work-force, so I have a good feel about how much of a "hardship" rescinding 3% of the marginal tax rate would have on me. Not enough to worry about. We live comfortably, and well within our means. I'm certain that the millionaires (including most Senators) who want to continue the tax break can learn to live without it.

 

[mheslep]

The GOP is squealing about raising the marginal tax rate on the highest-earning Americans from 36-39%. They proclaim that the Bush cuts on the highest earners must be extended, despite the fact that such an extension would add ~$1Trillion to the deficit over the next decade...

That's at least 30% high, and since when do you care about deficits (or unemployment for that matter)? I've missed your objections to the last several years of helicopter spending.

 

[turbo]

That's at least 30% high, and since when do you care about deficits (or unemployment for that matter)? I've missed your objections to the last several years of helicopter spending.

Extending unemployment benefits would have cost ~$30 Billion and the GOP wouldn't sign on because it would "add to the deficit". Somehow, Boehner et al had no problem with adding a trillion to the deficit to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

If you don't think that I have been outraged by unfunded wars, you're very wrong.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2869160&postcount=26