Can We Please Just Ignore The Republican Children in Congress
Obama put tax cuts in the economic recovery bill to get bi-partisan support.
Since Republicans are committed to obstructing Obama at every turn, shouldn’t he just strip the tax cuts out of the bill and just pass it with Democratic votes and a few grown up Republicans like Mike Castle?
I mean, hoping for the core of the Congressional GOP to grow up and act like adults is a mug’s game.
…a few grown up Republicans like Mike Castle?
O…M…G. You actually said that? YOU?!?! Do you know how badly hot coffee burns when snarfed through the nose? Even when you toss compliments, you’re still a bastard! You bastard!
I think he must try to get bi-partisan support. If not, the Democrats will “own” the crisis, which is what Republicans want. If Obama is seen as compromising with the Republicans and they block it anyway then Obama will be free to do what he wants.
LOL, RSmitty!
You’re slipping, Jason.
Agreed – Obama’s energy would be better spent insuring a party line Democratic vote. Clinton’s economic plan passed without a single Republican vote. All the Republicans predicted disaster.
The bill should include tax cuts, as long as they are smart tax cuts. Obama has promises to keep regarding tax cuts.The trick will be to keep out mischevious GOP amendments.
I don’t know why I have this reputation as a party line Democrat when I trash Carper every chance I get, have no kind words for Karen Weldin Stewart and give Republicans props when they are earned.
It seems to me that there are a number of rigidly partisan blogs in this state and Delaware Liberal is not one of them.
Everyone knows something must be done with the economy – exactly what is open for debate! I say that Obama must try and get the Republicans to sign on. He should do so publicly and very loudly – at which point Republicans will have two choices 1.) roll up their sleeves and try to help the country by working towards a solution, or 2.) be exposed for obstructionists completely void of ideas whose sole purpose is to make sure Obama fails.
Congress is despised by a majority of Americans. Republican stone walling or Democratic shenanigans won’t be tolerated by citizens.
Obama has the best hand here — lots of people know that the economy is in very bad shape and they are broadly supportive of his doing something about that. (They aren’t quite as supportive of bank supports, however.) Rs can do what they want, but what they don’t need is a narrative that makes them look like they are further marginalizing themselves.
And for anything to pass in the Senate, Obama will need a couple of R votes to pass a bill anyway.
Only if there’s a filibuster. And boy, I’d LOVE to see the R’s filibuster Obama’s economic stimulus package! Honestly, 59 Senate seats is not enough for me. I want to see us pick up the open seats in Florida and Missouri, too (and maybe Arlen Specter’s while we’re at it).
“for anything to pass in the Senate, Obama will need a couple of R votes to pass a bill anyway”
I rather doubt that fillibustering an economic stimulus package will do much for Congressional Republicans’ polling numbers, which already are lower than Democrats’.
give Republicans props when they are earned
And when has Castle earned props for acting like a “grown up” in the last 8 years when it comes to fiscal responsibility?
A1,
I thought he had signaled that he was going to vote with the Dems on the stimulus, but I can’t find it now.
My props may have been unearned afterall. (?!)
anon wrote:
Perhaps Mr Obama is looking to what happened to the Democrats in the subsequent election. 🙂
Pandora wrote:
No, not everybody knows that. President Obama has promised deficits in excess of $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. What if we just did nothing about the economy?
The answer is: it would recover, because the economy always recovers. That’s part of the business cycle, ups and downs. We are fortunate that the ups tend to last longer than the downs, but we have to realize that the downs are part of the economy as a whole.
But, of course, politicians have to be seen as doing something, so they will do something. And, of course, since there is no control group, we never know if what they do helps, hurts or does nothing. Regardless of what the Democrats do, if the economy recovers before the next election, they will claim credit for having made it happen, even though we can’t know if they speeded up the recovery, slowed down the recovery, or had no effect.
And if the economy doesn’t recover before the next election, they’ll say that things were so bad due to George Bush that they need more time to fix things.
The answer is: it would recover, because the economy always recovers.
Once again:
Which of these is going to keep GDP from crashing in 2009?
GDP may fall in 2009; that’s what happens during recessions. But the economy will recover, period.
That’s some insight.
Thanks Hoover, I mean Dana!
Republicans love recessions because labor is cheap, and they can scoop up all the assets earned by the middle class for pennies on the dollar.
Yes, the economy will recover, in the sense that a broken leg will heal over without treatment.
We are talking about a GDP “crash,” not the 1-2% dip of previous recessions. A crash would mean unemployment well over 10%, plus no ability of government to provide relief services. Plus, the loss of institutions and savings would take decades to recover. That is what has real economists so scared.
anon has an excellent question that you failed to answer, Dana. Perhaps you can tell us what the actual floor of of this recession would be before it starts to recover with no intervention.
And I don’t think that there has been a contemporary recession of any longevity that has been allowed to just run its own course. Most (not the short ones) get some kind of government support, so the expectation that the economy will just rebound on its own doesn’t have a track record.
Thanks for the neo-Hoover insight, Dana.
Apparently Grover Norquist of all people is encouraging Rs to smile, embrace Obama and keep asking for tax cuts. Even though tax cuts have been a failure to date, there’s no multiplier effect and (just for old times sake) they don’t pay for themselves.
Democrats love recessions because votes are cheap, and they can tax away all the assets earned by the middle class and buy more votes.
Speaking of tax cuts, why do minimum wage earners pay any taxes whatsoever? Let’s go Dems, fix it.
Why aren’t all basic living expenses (housing (not just mortgage interest), food, clothing, utilities, home repairs, transportation, basic communications) ALL deductible from income from, say, 0-99K?
Why is not all interest on all consumer debt deductible for middle and lower income households?
Businesses can deduct such expenses from their bottom lines. Why not households / individuals?
These are tax cuts that can happen immediately. And welcome relief for the struggling.
Why must lower and middle income resources be doled back out through Washington DC pork barrel?
Is it that patriotism and sacrifice thing?
Why is not all interest on all consumer debt deductible for middle and lower income households?
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that. Also thank Reagan for taxes on unemployment benefits and Social Security benefits.
Another nail in the coffin of the Reagan myth.
Yeah? Any other ancient history lessons.
Fix it.
Also, how about means-testing Social Security so it can be what it was supposed to be : SECURITY, not entitlement. Drop the baby boomers who already have enough assets and/or income to be secure on their own for life, without a check from the government. It would go a long way to ending the Ponzi scheme reality of SS.
Wasn’t the Tax Reform Act of 1986 actually WRITTEN and promoted by Dems and just signed by Reagan? Reagan deserves some blame, but so do the Dems. (One of whom, I think, was Sen. Bill Bradley)
So Reagan gets credit for the tax cuts, while Dems get blame for tax increases and deficits? Nice try…
Wasn’t the Tax Reform Act of 1986 actually WRITTEN and promoted by Dems and just signed by Reagan?
Funny, when Carter tried to explain how Medicare was written and promoted by Dems over Gov. Reagan’s objections, and Reagan “just signed it” – do you remember how Reagan responded?
“Also, how about means-testing Social Security so it can be what it was supposed to be : SECURITY, not entitlement. ”
Agreed. In fact, if you did that, I bet you could lift the floor so the first $15,000 or so of income is SS-free. I’d take that in a second.
Also, how about means-testing Social Security
I’m sure that is will be on the table. That, and lifting the income caps ought to fix it just fine.
Fix it.
There’s already a House bill to suspend taxes on unemployment benefits. Not bad for the first week.
Great!
We need to start looking at how the taxes get you both coming and going and start simplifying.
Let’s not forget, aside from the actual tax burden, the burden of compliance and reporting under our byzantine tax laws. The aggregate drag on the economy is absolutely measurable, quantifiable, and ridiculous.
Hell, our would-be Treasury Sec uses TurboTax and still got it wrong.
I hope Obama looks to tax code reform and simplification, in his quest for efficiency.
Unfortunately this would likely be killed by the Congressional Democrats, whose predecessors in the last 5 decades pretty much founded the U.S. tax code nightmare as we know it.
means-testing Social Security…
The problem is that Dave’s dad has paid into SS all of these years (his first week at work anyway) and now has a rightful claim to that money.
Yeah. If only he had built a business that he could hand me so I could spend all day online and still clear big bucks.
What’s THAT like, trust fund?
Yous father’s lack of busniess acumen is sad.
*snif*
😯 (that’s to FSP’s comment)
For all your recent rants, J, that was an anti-climatic response. boooooo!
I feel for Dave. The difference between his father and my father is that mine won the genetic lottery and got me for a son.
Dave’s… well, ’nuff said.
He built a business, alright. He just thought I ought to do for myself instead of handing my future to me on a silver platter. I respect him for that.
Man, you two are being nice to each other. These aren’t smack downs, they’re patty-cakes!
I guess I leave my best stuff on-air. Like yesterday when Mike called Ruth Ann a “bitter old woman.” And I said, “Hey! She’s the female Jason Scott!”
How can I get mad when he is such an utterly hilarious fool?
He knows less about me than he knows about politics or economics and that is saying something.
Oh man with witty patter like that your ratings must be jumping up into the teens.
Getting better….patty cakes turned into nose flicks.
Ratings in the teens? Do you even know what you’re saying?
And YOU saying that I don’t know anything about YOU?! Classic.
I think you mean the average IQ of his audience. Arbitron ratings in the teens would be a good thing.
ICarly,
Listeners in the teens. The over/under is 17.
Takers?
Bitch, please. When you call in we at least double that. =34
lol!
I might have to start listening to Asswipe too. His show sounds totally awesome.