So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye

The Senate scattered to the four winds this afternoon, leaving unfinished work on a $9.2 billion bill to extend for one-month unemployment benefits. This will not make for a restful two-week recess for exhausted lawmakers as some of the benefits begin to run out April 5 – the day after Easter. Barring any kidnapped girls or celebrity deaths, I can just imagine cable network news directors, desperate for stories, fixating on the plight of furloughed Transportation Department workers or people who have, for the second time in two months, lost their unemployment benefits. Unfortunately for those folks, the Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until April 12 at which time Democrats expect to pass another extension that will apply the benefits retroactively.

Sound familiar? Yes, this is exactly what happened last month with Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican. So why the repeat performance?

Republicans want the bill to be paid for. In the last week they’ve attached a version to the reconciliation amendments and tried straight passage of a substitute bill, both of which used stimulus funds to pay for it –Dems voted down both. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, is the main person objecting to the bill on the grounds that this is the fifth unpaid for bill Dems have passed this year and all this debt is mounting on his grandchildren. “The American people and the rest of the world understand that our debt and deficits are as much of an emergency as our unemployment rate,” Coburn said in a statement Friday. “The American people also understand the best unemployment benefit is a job.  An economy with as much debt as our simply can’t create jobs at the rate we need them.”

Democrats argue that after spending trillions of dollars for President George W. Bush’s wars mostly financed by debt, their priorities are even more pressing: helping the victims of the economic crisis. They deem this emergency spending and resent what they say is GOP obstructionism at the expensive of the most needy. “Thousands of Nevadans and millions of Americans depend on the critical assistance provided by unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits. That’s why it is extremely disappointing Republicans would not agree to a short-term extension of these benefits this evening,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement last night. “It is our hope Republicans will realize the damage they are causing and stop standing in the way of this much-need assistance for out-of-work Americans.”

Essentially the argument comes down to ideological differences about what creates jobs: the GOP believes lower taxes and smaller deficits will spur the economy; Democrats believe that using the stimulus money to pay for the bill is robbing the very thing – maybe the only thing – that is creating jobs in this economy. And both sides see this train-wreck as a political win. Democrats get to champion the little guy and highlight the latest evidence of how Republicans are the “Party of No.” The GOP gets to reclaim the rusty mantle of fiscal conservatism. I guess the only losers here are the people losing their benefits and their jobs.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: Democratic Party, extension, recess, republcians, tom coburn, unemployment benefits, Congress, Democratic Party, Economy, Harry Reid, Republican Party, Senate
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    the GOP believes lower taxes and smaller deficits will spur the economy

    That may be conventional wisdom but there is no evidence that it’s true. The GOP believes lower taxes will benefit their efforts to remain in office, deficits be d@mned. The sad things is that they have a point when they insist that things be paid for, but they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever when it comes to lecturing others on spending money they don’t have.

  • allthingsinaname

    Conventional wisdom? Anyone can see that the Stagnant wage growth for the last decade and the current unemployment is the result of Republican policies.

  • destor23

    “Exhausted lawmakers…”

    I know they’re mostly old and stuff but these people have easier jobs than most. No sympathy!

  • nflfoghorn

    “…[T]he GOP believes lower taxes and smaller deficits will spur the economy…”
    .
    Lowering taxes never paid the bills. Ever.

  • diecash1

    That’s the same quote that jumped out at me.
    ..
    While Republicans have pushed for lower taxes, when precisely have they done anything more than pay lip-service to the idea of smaller deficits? They are sanctimonious tools, nothing more.
    ..

    Anyone can see that the Stagnant wage growth for the last decade

    Last decade? Real wages have taken a pounding for the last decade it’s true but wages have been stagnant since about 1973.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Allthings,
    .
    Robert Reich claims that wage growth has been in mosquito-infested waters since the 70s.
    .
    But, yes, shorter Jay:
    .
    Some say FDR was right, some say Reagan; who are we to decide or wade into the pesky facts/history to help you.
    .
    Sadly, Obama also has to do a much better job at illustrating the contrast, portraying the villains of history (& today).
    .
    Rick Perlstein makes this pt. vividly (though it must be said he’s a far better writer than public speaker)
    .
    http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/news/video/2010/03/25/watch-whatever-happened-to-hope-why-barack-obama-cannot-become-a-transformational-president.110739

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    You just beat me Die!

  • diecash1

    Common malady JC!
    ..
    You said your alma mater is in the Final 8 yesterday. Are you a Butler grad then? It was a nice game yesterday but not as good as the KState win over Xavier…….that was a classic!

  • tarfunk

    I’m a professed liberal who was laid off last year and who supports the stimulus, but there’s nothing wrong in pointing out the hypocrisy of the D’s in passing pay-as-you-go rules and then breaking them. All Americans are losers in this train wreck, not just the unemployed (like me) but the taxpaying public.

  • kevin

    The GOP also believes an all Ben and Jerry’s diet will result in significant weight loss.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    No, not Butler. Hint: When drunk with friends, we’d sing John Denver. I had to work during that epic-sounding KState game. I’m thrilled that CBS streams these games overseas. Almost unheard of for American-based content.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    Lowering taxes on people with no income doesn’t stimulate squat.

  • kevin

    They didn’t break their PAYGO rules. The rules they passed included specific exemptions for unemployment insurance.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “the GOP believes lower taxes and smaller deficits will spur the economy”

    There isn’t a respectable right-wing economist in the world who believes this any longer. The few times monetarist policies have been tried were all miserable failures. It’s hilarious when they trot out Reagan as an example of this policy. Deficits increased under Reagan because in reality he followed Keynesian economic policies, like everyone else. Keynes would have advocated a fiscal policy that would lower taxes but increase deficits, at this point in the economic cycle. Obama has done the same thing. People forget that half or so of the stimulus were tax cuts. The knock on Obama, by many economists, is that he hasn’t increased the deficit enough or spent the money on the wrong things, like bailing out states. He should have spent it on huge infrastructure projects.

  • choska

    “Republicans want the bill to be paid for.”

    Yes, of course they do. Everyone remembers all of the balanced budgets that Republicans submitted.

    Once again Jay proves that she will believe ANYTHING a Republican flack tells her.

    Doesn’t Time Magazine have editors to keep their “writers” from degrading the brand?

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Infrastructure projects!? That’s socialist, or is it? It’s so confusing. Apparently, as long as it doesn’t benefit the stupid it’s socialism. Priceless:
    .
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLBZwxqgYgwI

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    jcapan I pay about as much attention to the theories of teabaggers as the rantings of an angry wino. My guess is they don’t even know what fiscal policy is, how it differs from monetary policy, or that there are three types of fiscal policy, each of which applies to a different phase in the business cycle. When I attended university many decades ago socialism was not considered the same thing as fiscal policy. Socialism was defined as a political economy where all the means of production were owned by the government. In other words, not only was it different from a policy which seeks to stimulate the private sector, there was no private sector at all. I really don’t see where the the confusion arises and more or less assume the teabaggars are just ignorant morons, with good intentions of course.

  • newfreedomblog

    And in other news. AT&T says due to the new healthcare reform bill, they will need to lower profit expectations by 1 BILLION dollars.
    .
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html
    .

    A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

    .
    In other words, they will no longer offer alternatives to retired employees who remained on the company plans, and did not participate in the Medicare Plan D. Now those retired former employees will have to go to Medicare Plan D in order to be covered.
    .

    AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

    .
    So what will happen to make up for these new job losses? Layoffs? Can we say JOB LOSS FOR A MILLINON MORE AMERICANS who once had very stable jobs in once secure companies?
    .
    No Jay Newton-Small. This is not about Republicans who want to assure the Tax Payers in America that they will no longer allow for more unfunded programs or expenditures. That those who have gone now for over 6 months collecting unemployment checks will either need to get a lower paying job than they once had, or simply forgo their cable TV for a few months.
    .
    Rather than those who may or may not get benefits in April, perhaps you will want to write on a story about how ObamaCare will cause Millions more to lose their jobs.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Beware, Derek, saying “when I attended university” is elitist. And, per the ravings of most liberal professors, socialist to boot! Well, unless you attended Bob Jones U. But totally agree about the “good intentions.” Yup, white supremacy, a pistol in every backpack, submissive women in kitchen boxes–the best of American fundamentalism can be yours if you’re willing to send 100$ to Sarah P, JD Hayworth, Mike Huckaf@ck…

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    jcapan I thought an elitist is someone who eats fruit and salad, or multi-grain breads and other healthy foods. The kind of person who exercises, to stay in shape. It does get confusing trying to connect the disconnected ramblings of the idiots into something that is analogous to a coherent thought.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

    So cash flowing directly from the government to AT & T tax free will no longer be tax free. Did you know your taxes were flowing directly to ATT retirees Rusty. Sounds like welfare to me……

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    The sudden focus on fiscal conservatism as one of the Republican party’s current selling point is absurd.

    They got the country into one of the mightiest debt situations which in part, I believe, led to this recession. Now, they are suddenly worried about the monies for employment and want it paid for?? Where were they when we were fighting two wars simultaneously and bleeding through our eyes.

    Overall, I think there is a time for ideological divides and there is a time to go with compassion. So many Americans need unemployment to feed their families and to pay some basic bills. In effect, the economic situation has created a dire need for the extension of unemployment benefits.

    I think this is something both sides should NOT politicize because the losers are the American public.

    I hope they can resolve this matter quickly and stop the posturing. Politicians thrive on compromise, surely, they can reach some sort of consensus on this matter and stop the drama. :)

    LM
    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/felonies-including-stalking-kidnapping-and-murder-using-technology-are-a-growing-scourge/

  • diecash1

    That those who have gone now for over 6 months collecting unemployment checks will either need to get a lower paying job than they once had, or simply forgo their cable TV for a few months.

    This typifies the idiocy that is you rustyblogwhore. I’ll give you partial credit for being consistent — consistently wrong, that is.

  • Tom in The Swamp

    Teabaggers fantasize about a time when they can each be a little Pol Pot. If things go their way, eventually wearing glasses will be sufficient cause for a beheading.

  • gysgt213

    “And in other news. AT&T says due to the new healthcare reform bill, they will need to lower profit expectations by 1 BILLION dollars.”
    .
    newfreedom-You do know that AT&T is an key part of the surveillance state. Which means they work hand and hand with the government (you now hate because a democrat is in charge of it) and it enables the government to spy on its customers. And they will also work hand and hand when a republican president takes office.
    ,
    Think about that why you shed your crocodile tears for a corporation and try to make anyone feel guilty for jobs and benefits they would have done away with health care bill or not.

  • redraven937

    See, this is the one thing that honestly confuses me about Rusty et tal: does what they complain about make sense in their personal overarching worldview? I know we can say “obviously their worldview makes no internal sense” but I can’t help but wonder if it does to them.
    .
    The government is removing a $1 billion healthcare subsidy from a private company. Maybe AT&T will cut jobs, maybe they won’t. But, Rusty, were you for a $1 billion subsidy for AT&T? I vaguely recall you being very adamantly against stimulus packages that surely saved the same kind of jobs that might be lost under these circumstances.
    .
    So which is it? Are you for stimulus packages or against them? You cannot be both against stimulus and against AT&T losing this subsidy.

  • deconstructiva

    Jay, if you’re checking back here, thanks for your Friday article about the upcoming filibuster redux, esp. re: the R’s say one thing / do something else re: “fiscal responsibility.” If I remember correctly, last night on cspan Sanders highlighted the R’s hypocrisy in standing for fiscal principles on this issue but NOT on the Bush Wars™ or other issues. Maybe this will turn into a Real Filibuster™ brought to you by the Karen Tumulty Institute for Senate Parliamentary Procedure™. Anything re: jobs will be a media winner so please stay on this, Jay. Thanks!

  • FlownOver

    It’s pretty clear that even if this works in some situations, it’s not universally true. Just consider how much additional tax revenue would be generated if the tax rate were reduced to zero. Somewhere along the continuum the Laffer Curve becomes the Laughter Curve.

    Since it’s clear the general claim is at best subject to limits, evidence showing that Tax Reduction X in Economic Environment Y results in Revenue Increase Z should be required, instead of relying solely on the usual Republican faith-based economics.

  • sasquatch08

    “they’re priorities are just as dire:”

    Excellent grammar. You became a journalist how exactly?

    I’m supposed to take you seriously when you don’t know the basic 5th grade difference between there, their and they’re? Give me a break.

  • sasquatch08

    “So cash flowing directly from the government to AT & T tax free will no longer be tax free. Did you know your taxes were flowing directly to ATT retirees Rusty. Sounds like welfare to me……”

    And they’ll be flowing straight to the employee’s after this when American Telephone & Telegraph boots them onto the actual welfare system.

    It’s not a subsidy (money the government gives you to prop you up) it was tax credit (money you don’t have to pay to the gov’t for doing something they like) which no longer exists. Exactly what Obama wants to do with business, give them tax credits for health care for workers and other tax credits for hiring people.

  • deconstructiva

    I presume YOU maintain perfect spelling and grammar 100% of the time. Bully for you. None of the reporters here do, but they try. Neither do the commenters (including me). Remember that not all authors could spell perfectly either. If there’s an error then just point it out sans vitriol.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1193231/The-importance-Earnest-Hemminway–spelling-isnt-important.html

  • sasquatch08

    “Lowering taxes never paid the bills. Ever.”

    Nor did raising them. Capital is mobile. Look at Jersey, raising taxes to increase funding and actually losing $50 billion in tax revenue because people moved out. I know a real estate agent in the Caribbean whose business is booming from people looking to move out of the US to establish their companies and homes were taxes will be lower.

    Capital is mobile.

  • deconstructiva

    …and no vitriol on my part either, just relax and have fun with this. Really? Yes, playing spell check can be a fun game here: the irony of our own awful spelling and grammar makes this even better. Enjoy!

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Decon beat me to it in the wider sense (and I’m a f@cking English teacher). But as long as we’re speaking of apostrophes, what, pray tell, does your singular employee possess here:
    .
    “And they’ll be flowing straight to the employee’s after this when American Telephone & Telegraph boots them onto the actual welfare system.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    were -> where? Again, why are we to take your commentary seriously?

  • sasquatch08

    “I presume YOU maintain perfect spelling and grammar 100% of the time. Bully for you. None of the reporters here do, but they try. Neither do the commenters (including me). Remember that not all authors could spell perfectly either. If there’s an error then just point it out sans vitriol.”

    Bugger off. I don’t get PAID to have good grammar. She does.

  • Cliff

    So tell me, how do you look at the past eight years, where Bush pushed through massive tax cuts on the rich and turned our budgetary surplus into a screaming wasteland of debt, and argue for more tax cuts?
    .
    How do you look at America’s income disparities (the greatest since the 1920s, which you may remember as being the decade before the Great Depression) and call for more tax cuts for the rich?
    .
    How do you look at Goldmann Sachs executives getting multimillion dollar bonuses, while unemployment is skyrocketing, and conclude that the GS execs need fewer taxes?

  • Cliff

    I think it’s fair game to ding JNS on her spelling and grammar. As sasquatch08 points out, it’s her job to know these things.

  • sasquatch08

    “Decon beat me to it in the wider sense (and I’m a f@cking English teacher). But as long as we’re speaking of apostrophes, what, pray tell, does your singular employee possess here”

    Duly noted. My apologies. However the point stands. I went to college for Political Science, not English or Journalism. She did. I don’t get paid to have perfect grammar on this website. She does. Her inability to determine the proper use of there, their or they’re is shocking and appalling (I had that drilled into me in 4th grade in a public school) considering words are her trade.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Well, if such errors were to appear in print, I’d fully agree. Blogs are done without a net (i.e. editor), and I’m unsure how much they’re compensated for these supplemental postings. Especially writers like Jay/Michael, forced to produce a lot more content than “sages” like Joe. Sticking merely to quantity, mind you.
    .
    Part of it is my own disinclination to play the schoolmarm. Spelling/grammar have long served as bludgeons by haughty/properly educated folks against the rabble, even when the rabble has the better ideas.
    .
    Finally, of all the things Jay or her profession could be condemened for, this is item #97. A record of crystalline prose wouldn’t excuse away decades of failure.

  • sasquatch08

    Cliff-

    First off, as I’ve said time and again I am not part of the GOP or the DNC. I’m independent., libertarian actually.

    Bush was in no way fiscally conservative. His tax cuts might have been a good idea, maybe not. However the issue isn’t really the tax cuts; the spending is. Bush spent a heck of a lot more money than he had any business doing under any circumstances. Historically speaking, tax cuts and tax raises don’t do much to the overall income of the government as a percentage of GDP. Capital is mobile.

    On tax cuts today: they would be useful if used judiciously. There are many rich people that can easily afford it. However leveling a tax on people making more than $250,000 may look good to some, but many small business owners claim the money in their business as personal income for tax reasons. (Don’t ask me why, it’s a fact that they do apparently there’s some advantage to it. Personally it seems like either a stupid tax code or stupid people I don’t know which.) With that laid out, many small businesses will be hit as “rich people” with taxes that will cost them money. When the lose money they cut costs. Less employees cuts cost. If these people were all exec’s of large companies then it wouldn’t matter.

    More tax cuts for the rich: I have never been employed by a poor person. Income disparities are a problem that needs to be addressed but soaking the rich and redistributing income isn’t the way to do it. The U.S.S.R./ tried that and it worked up until 1991 when the whole system fell apart. The D.D.R. did the same thing under Russian guidance and they had to build a wall with armed guards to keep people in the D.D.R.. Just ask anyone who has ever owned a Trabant how well that sort of system works. I would argue that education is the way to do it but that’s just me.

    As for exec’s bonuses: This is going to sound bad in some ways and I admit that. I don’t know GSs’ situation en toto, however generally speaking if you run a company that makes billions in profits under your leadership is it really so hard to imagine that you are owed millions for it? When is the last time any one on this blog made a billion for their company, never mind a few billion? People get paid for the quality of work they do in a free market, so making billions in profit gets millions in your pocket just as millions in profit is tens of thousands in your pocket and tens of thousands in profit is hundreds or thousands in your pocket. I totally agree that some of these bonuses are rediculous considering that the taxpayers bailed these guys out (which I don’t think they should have) but contracts are contracts and the government can’t negate a contract due to the Constitution.

    Unemployment, in the context of this discussion is apples to oranges.

  • sasquatch08

    jcapan-

    Justify it anyway you want. A degree in Journalism requires an expansive knowledge of English. Online Blog or not as a “Journalist” her job is to get things right and she shouldn’t rely on an editor.

    “Part of it is my own disinclination to play the schoolmarm. Spelling/grammar have long served as bludgeons by haughty/properly educated folks against the rabble, even when the rabble has the better ideas.”

    So, in the general context of American liberal vs conservative (not world view which is TOTALLY different conservatives in this country are WAY left of the worldwide mainstream historically): liberals love to beat people over the head with their “haughty/properly educated” ways?

  • Cliff

    Historically speaking, tax cuts and tax raises don’t do much to the overall income of the government as a percentage of GDP.
    .
    So if it doesn’t do much to the income of the government relative to the GDP, why not raise taxes and start paying some of our bills off?
    .
    Capital is mobile.
    .
    You keep saying this, but I keep looking at mid-century America, which had much greater tax rates for the rich, but yet, strangely, we were the most prosperous nation in the world.
    .
    However leveling a tax on people making more than $250,000 may look good to some, but many small business owners claim the money in their business as personal income for tax reasons.
    .
    So that’s why we write the tax code to not punish small business owners. I’m sure there’s a few accountants out there who could figure out how.
    .
    I have never been employed by a poor person.
    .
    Have you ever been unemployed by a poor person?
    .
    generally speaking if you run a company that makes billions in profits under your leadership is it really so hard to imagine that you are owed millions for it?
    .
    See, this gets right to the point I was trying to make: the Sachs executives and their ilk damn near drove America into the ground, and they’d do it again in a heartbeat if it meant their companies could make $50 bucks more.
    .
    That’s not doing a good job, that’s walking into a bank with a bomb strapped to your chest.
    .
    They’re making their profits based off of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars poured into their pockets.
    .
    How is this virtuous? How does this entitle them to multimillion dollar bonuses? Why should we not tax the ever-loving sh*t out of them, after they f–ked up our economy and got bailed out?
    .
    And if they leave because the taxes hurt their feelings, good riddance and God help whatever nation they inflict themselves on next.
    .
    And yeah, unemployment pertains to the discussion because the 10% unemployment is the direct result of Wall Street’s rapaciousness.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Personally, I partially agree with your 1st pt. If my profession were writing, I’d be highly motivated to avoid having my name at the top of sloppy text.
    .
    As for your last paragraph, what? My pt. was personally, as a teacher (lit not grammar), I hate the reaction I get from folks when they learn my profession: slightly blanched, afraid their diction is skewed etc. This doesn’t mean that my students don’t face death by a 1000 red marks, but when we’re seeking to communicate with one another, unfettered by the trivial, apostrophes etc. don’t amt. to a whole hell of a lot. It’s a distraction.
    .
    The NYT probably had fairly clean copy running up to the Iraq War, but there are untold buckets of blood that will not out.

  • sasquatch08

    jcapan-

    Your first paragraph was what I was trying to get at.
    .
    My last paragraph was somewhat unrelated and I did a poor job of tying it in. My point was that most of the “liberals” are the ones that are well educated and beat everyone else over the head with the “I went to college so I must be smarter/better than you” type mentality.
    .
    I read the NYT as well as a few other papers and I have seen a serious degradation in grammar, spelling and punctuation in the past few years in all of them. I don’t think it’s a problem of the individual paper, I think it’s because English is a forgotten art (that I am by no means perfect at but some of the errors in papers are egregious).

    “Historically speaking, tax cuts and tax raises don’t do much to the overall income of the government as a percentage of GDP.
    .
    So if it doesn’t do much to the income of the government relative to the GDP, why not raise taxes and start paying some of our bills off?”

    If it doesn’t do much either way how would higher taxes help us pay our bills off? The whole point is that SPENDING is out of control in this administration and the previous.
    .
    “Capital is mobile.
    .
    You keep saying this, but I keep looking at mid-century America, which had much greater tax rates for the rich, but yet, strangely, we were the most prosperous nation in the world.”

    Mid-Century America, you mean 1950 where far less people had cars or the capital to move from state to state? The America where there were nowhere near as many millionaires? That America? Apples to Oranges. That’s like comparing Japan today to Japan in 1950 or Italy today to the Roman Empire, it makes no sense. Transportation has gotten better and people have more assets: deal with it.

    “However leveling a tax on people making more than $250,000 may look good to some, but many small business owners claim the money in their business as personal income for tax reasons.
    .
    So that’s why we write the tax code to not punish small business owners. I’m sure there’s a few accountants out there who could figure out how.”

    I’m sure those accountants exist as well. Too bad the government doesn’t hire them. You’re “fixed” tax code is a fantasy. Try dealing with the reality of the IRS code that takes piles of books just existing to enlist and an army of people to explain; that’s reality and it’s not going to change with Obama (or any other President, it requires Congress to act and they have no sack to do so).

    “I have never been employed by a poor person.”
    .
    Have you ever been unemployed by a poor person?”

    Yes, after I graduated High School beggars on the street outside the restaurant I worked at cost us so much lost revenue myself and many others we let go. Even if that didn’t happen your argument is a red herring.

    “generally speaking if you run a company that makes billions in profits under your leadership is it really so hard to imagine that you are owed millions for it?
    .
    See, this gets right to the point I was trying to make: the Sachs executives and their ilk damn near drove America into the ground, and they’d do it again in a heartbeat if it meant their companies could make $50 bucks more.
    .
    That’s not doing a good job, that’s walking into a bank with a bomb strapped to your chest.
    .
    They’re making their profits based off of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars poured into their pockets.”

    Your point makes no sense. You are extrapolating the actions of a few executives at one corporation to the whole free market system. Also, a company like Goldman Sachs could care less about $50.
    I never said these people in particular did a good job. Merely that you can’t paint everyone in the industry with a broad brush and then use that to soak them for money to pay for entitlement programs that will almost undoubtedly run over budget and soak every taxpayer for loads of cash.

    Do you really believe that politicians wouldn’t do something similar “in a heartbeat” for cash? If so you are deluding yourself.

    Relating anything in the economy to terrorism is reprehensible, unless the money can be shown to go to such and endeavor. That house/apartment/job/car/anything you have you can thank the free market for. If you don’t like it, move to China or Venezuela.

    There will always be greed in the market and in government. The difference is in the government you don’t have an alternative provider to move to.
    The bailouts should never have happened. This country has been overspending on its “credit card” for far too long. The bailouts served as nothing more than a delay on the reality check we dearly need. If people lose their shirts over it, that’s fine by me.

    Personally I’m not banking on Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. I’m living on a tight budget and saving like crazy for retirement because the sad truth is that all of those programs are political lies. If you’re my age you won’t see a dime of it in return. You are getting robbed. Don’t believe me? Just wait 40 years and retire.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “My point was that most of the “liberals” are the ones that are well educated and beat everyone else over the head with the “I went to college so I must be smarter/better than you” type mentality.”
    .
    I agree that as far as tendencies go, this one is more liberal than conservative. Doubtless, many of the targets are worthwhile, but if middle America thinks you’re condescending and detached from their world, it doesn’t = ballot-box gold in the long run, particularly when there’s plenty of populist angst out there, waiting for someone to rationally explain what the F happened to their so-called American dream. If they think you hold them in such slight regard, well, you know where I’m going…. Ironic, given that I’m the raving liberal and you’re the libertarian, though your target is hardly part of the underclass. It’s simply my contention that she and her village should be condemned most forcefully for their far more “egregious” wrongs.
    .
    I’d say the degradation you note in the papers you read is directly related to two things, gutted revenue streams (and consequently streamlined press rooms), and though most of these folks go to elite schools, sh!te education, compared to generations past. Like basketball, such fundamentals simply aren’t stressed in American schools. I’d add technology to the mix: who learns to spell when machines do it for you, when reading is so passe’, when how you write ultimately is judged by whether your tweets or Facebook comments are compelling.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    BTW, I think the elitist condescension we’re talking about here is rampant in MSM. Veering away from grammar to the larger discourse, even if it’s to indulge myself, empathy might occasionally shine through but more often than not the human subjects in MSM stories are mere abstractions (& distractions from cocktail snark & horseracing).
    .
    Jeremy Scahill, who just won a richly-deserved Izzy said it brilliantly:
    .
    “I would define an independent journalist as someone that’s totally un-embedded when it comes to their relationship with the powerful. In other words, you don’t get into bed with any political party. I’m not a Democrat; I’m not a Republican. I’m a journalist. It means that you don’t get in bed with the military, with the CIA, or wealthy corporations, and you don’t compromise your journalistic or your personal integrity in the pursuit of anything, including a story.
    .
    I believe that the way independent journalists are most effectively able to conduct their work is by maintaining their independence from the powerful. I don’t hob-nob with the powerful. I don’t count among my friends executives or other powerful people. I think it’s important for independent journalists to not be beholden to any special interests whatsoever.
    .
    On the flip side of that, it’s the role of independent journalists to embed themselves with the victims of U.S. foreign policy — in the case of U.S. journalists — or domestic policy. What I mean by that is to actually go out to where the people live who are most affected by these policies — be it Afghanistan or the slums of the United States. You have to be un-embedded from the powerful and you have to embed yourself with the disempowered, because I think part of our role as independent journalists is not only to confront those in power, but to give voice to the voiceless.”

  • sasquatch08

    “I’d say the degradation you note in the papers you read is directly related to two things, gutted revenue streams (and consequently streamlined press rooms), and though most of these folks go to elite schools, sh!te education, compared to generations past. Like basketball, such fundamentals simply aren’t stressed in American schools. I’d add technology to the mix: who learns to spell when machines do it for you, when reading is so passe’, when how you write ultimately is judged by whether your tweets or Facebook comments are compelling.”

    Freaking A right! People have substituted machines for brainpower. That was the ultimate gist of my dig against this blogs poster!

    Forgive my ignorance but what is MSM?

  • sasquatch08

    Unfortunately there are very few entities that would hire Mr. Scahill.

    There are the left wing groups like the dailykos and rightwing groups like rightwingnews,com that despise objective journalism because they want to promote a point of view.

    On the other hand many mainstream news sources wouldn’t hire such a person. CNN, MSNBC would say he isn’t liberal enough while FOX would crucify him for not towing the ultra conservative line.

    The problem is now-a-days there are no truly “objective” journalists because they are all beholden to the political winds of the organization for which they work.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    MSM = mainstream media
    .
    “The problem is now-a-days there are no truly “objective” journalists because they are all beholden to the political winds of the organization for which they work”
    .
    Well, yes, beholden, but less to political winds IMO than whatever agenda their corporate owners/sponsors favor. I think this transcends political left or right. The uncomfortable truths Scahill has dedicated his life to discovering would be heresy in corp. newsrooms, where balance must trump truth.

  • stuartzechman

    CNN, MSNBC would say he isn’t liberal enough
    .
    No, they would say he’s not “objective” enough, which means ideologically centrist in practice, CNN more so than MSNBC.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Tom I really don’t know what they want as I pay no attention to them. I can understand people being angry about what has happened to the economy, if they were directly affected. However, what I don’t understand is why they want to see policies employed to fix the economy that have never worked. Now I could be wrong but I don’t think there has ever been a case where lowering taxes and lowering gov’t expenditure at the same time, during a recession, has quickly led back to full employment, full employment being 6% unemployment. If there are any teabaggars, or conservatives reading this who can correct me, please do. Name the time and place, it doesn’t have to be America, where that policy has worked.

  • johnnybcool

    Democrats argue that after spending trillions of dollars for President George W. Bush’s wars mostly financed by debt, ***they’re*** priorities are just as dire: helping the victims of the economic crisis.

    You KNOW times are tough when TIME can’t get enough editors so grammar like this doesn’t happen!

    should have been “their”, no? they’re means “they are”… which doesn’t ever make sense in the sentence.

  • http://teacherreaderwriter.wordpress.com/ Shakespeare in GA

    You know what I’d like to see?
    .
    A ranking Republican saying publicly that, in the past, the GOP was fiscally irresponsible and that now it’s time to work hand-in-hand with the Democrats to fix this mess.
    .
    I don’t believe the GOP is the only fiscally irresponsible political party, but they did have control of the White House and Congress for much of the past decade, not to mention all of the eighties. And I seem to recall that, while the Democrats certainly aren’t blameless, they had the White House in the 90s and we had a surplus.
    .
    All I’m asking for is a ranking Republican to take partial ownership of this problem and offer to find workable solutions, not blame the Democrats.
    .
    Think about it. It would be revolutionary to current Washington politics. And if the ranking Republican was consistent in his efforts to address the issue and refrained from attack politics, that politician would garner a lot of legitimacy and perhaps even power. If his brethren didn’t eat him alive.
    .
    Otherwise we’re going to have finger-pointing and “well, he did it first!” for a long, long time.
    .
    Then again, I’m also an optimist.

  • http://teacherreaderwriter.wordpress.com/ Shakespeare in GA

    The government should close tax loopholes and exemptions and broaden the tax base. In other words, they should do a better job of collecting taxes under the current rates. At least, that sounds credible to me. Anyone here with more fiscal smarts than me (which, admittedly, would be several people) have a response?

  • diecash1

    Shakespeare — If you would like to learn more about the abuse of the U.S. tax code and some ideas for fixing it, you might read David Cay Johnston’s book “Perfectly Legal.” It’s a good read that is well documented. See it here:
    ..

  • newfreedomblog

    Well let me define it more clearly for you both. If a stimulus package is passed, which it was, to SAVE JOBS and stimulate the economy, and AT&T received this stimulus money to help keep jobs, then yes I would be for that. Only for the sake of saving jobs and stimulating the economy. I would much rather have that money spent on this than for underpasses on highways for the deer population to run through. Or for future studies to save the toads in Arkansas from the other toads in Arkansas because some lame brain ecologist thought there might be a problem.
    .
    But, overall I do not believe that private companies should receive bailouts or stimulus Tax Dollars for any other reason. Now, I am sure that AT&T is heavily Unionized, and the main reason was for the continuation of the Union, that I do not agree with. If it is to simply prop up the union trust funds because they raid those said funds for their own gain I would not want my tax dollars supporting this fraud.
    .
    So that is the catch 22. Fund them to save jobs, but pass laws like this current healthcare law which does the exact opposite. Does that make any sense?

  • jlbrumb

    It would if congress had to fund what t spends. I just retired so there is about $100k per year in income tax to be wasted. Just my little get even.

    As for my employees; they maybe should have made better choices in their careers. Like welfare.

  • bobell

    I myslef slip upp in both grammer and speling on occassion, but i’m not prout of it.This is a blog, and it’s ovbiously not formaly coppy-edited. I revue my pests at least wunse before sumbitting, and I stil miss little detales all the thyme. Most errorrs, not jest myne but everybodie’s, are the resullt of inedvortance, not iggorance.

    To the extent Jay’s salary is based on her work here, what matters is her ability to get and explain useful information, with perhaps a bit of commentary here and there. I don’t think she’s likely to get a bonus for perfect spieling. So ease up, folks, and hope that at least some of her typos will be amusing.

  • bobell

    sasquatch08: “many small business owners claim the money in their business as personal income for tax reasons. (Don’t ask me why, it’s a fact that they do apparently there’s some advantage to it. Personally it seems like either a stupid tax code or stupid people I don’t know which.) ”
    .
    If you incorporate a business, the business becomes subject to corporate income taxes. If the business runs a profit, it pays a tax on the profit, and that cuts the amount of money available for other uses. If it’s a single-owner business (sole proprietorship), the tax paid reduces the amount available for the owner’s salary, bonus, or dividends. IOW, it cuts his income. That’s one reason why lots of businesses don’t incorporate. Unincorporated business owned by more than one person are usually treated as partnerships for tax purposes. A partnership does not pay a separate tax as a separate entity, but all its revenue and expenses are passed through to the partners to appear on their returns. So, allowing for various exceptions, the tax results for a partnership are the same as for a sole proprietorship.
    .
    It is also possible for a small business to incorporate but elect to be treated like a partnership or sole proprietorship for federal tax purposes. There are lots of corporations that make this election. It holds taxes down and still gives the people behind the corporation some limitations of personal liability.
    .
    Now, it’s possible for a corporation never to pay any income taxes, at least in theory. All it has to do is break even or lose money every year. That may sound hard to control, but in businesses that deal in services, like law or accounting firms, you can adjust the employees’ salaries and bonusts to make sure the corporation never turns a profit. Since the principal employees are the officers and directors as well, ti’s not that hard to do. The IRS can try to fight this, for example by arguing that the bonuses are not salary but dividends. Dividends are paid out of profit, so bonueses converted to dividends are not deductible expenses. That creates taxable corporate income; remember, the tax is on profit.
    .
    Of coures, it’s vastly more complicated than that when you get down to the details. But that’s the general idea.

  • bobell

    Most blogs aren’t edited. I doubt that this one is. Let hiim* who is without sin criticize the first typo.
    .
    *Not “he” — him.” Do you know why?

  • shepherdwong

    “I know a real estate agent in the Caribbean whose business is booming from people looking to move out of the US to establish their companies and homes were taxes will be lower.”

    Good riddance, then. Leave you’re tax money on the table and don’t let the door hit you in the backside on your way out. Traitors.

  • traccan

    The two Senators who prevented the passage of this emergency legislation, Tom Coburn and Jim Bunning, must take the blame, as must the entire Republican party whose directives are “block, block, block”.

    The politicial system right now is FUCKED, when everyone else voted yea, and these two bozos can hold it up, and then blame it on the Democrats.

    If you live in OK or KY go out and emblazon on their respective headquarters “I AM A LOW LIFE PIECE-OF-SHIT”. Be nasty, be relentless, and take your country back instead of being apathetic and just ‘rah-rah Obama’. He can’t fight these bastards without our help.

  • sacredh

    So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye

    OT, but I collected my $50 bet on healthcare reform passing a few days ago. My buddy sent his son out to give it to me. He didn’t want me in his house. I ran into his son at the mall today. He graduates from college this spring and dropped a bombshell on me. He’s decided to leave the area. His dad doesn’t know yet.
    .
    His dad also thinks his son is just as conservative as he is. He’s not. He told me he voted for Obama, is never going to church again (his dad made him go as long he lived in his house) and doesn’t think he’s ever coming back. Not even to visit.
    .
    Instead of making a $50 donation to Obama’s re-election campaign in my friend’s name like I had planned to do, I’m going to take my wife out to dinner. It’s going to be a rough summer for my friend.

  • sasquatch08

    bobell -

    Thanks for the heads up on small business tax structure.

  • sasquatch08

    “No, they would say he’s not “objective” enough, which means ideologically centrist in practice, CNN more so than MSNBC.”

    Facts have no ideology. Those who report them have none either. While they may have political leanings they don’t advertise them in their journalism. Mr. Scahill argues that those people should exist in mass media.

    The day MSNBC is “centrist” is the day the sun doesn’t rise, same with FOX.

  • nissa20

    ‘Lowering taxes never paid the bills ‘ ?

    The so called ‘bills’ are for the most
    part, phony government creations .

    Lowering taxes, means more money in the
    private sector, which means more investment,
    which means a good economy, which
    means more productivity which
    means MORE JOBS ! More jobs, means fewer people
    stressing out each month over how to
    pay their bills , keep their houses, etc. etc.

    Read up on the robust economy of the
    Reagan years .

  • nissa20

    You can argue who is responsible for the state
    of affairs in this country, for years, but all that
    really matters is what is Obama doing NOW to
    bring down the deficit , help create jobs in
    the private sector and put people back to WORK.

    You don’t reduce the deficit by doubling
    and tripling it . Hello .

    He passed the stimulus – which furthered the
    deficit by
    a trillion dollars and produced few long term
    jobs . Not much there

    Pushed for the healthcare bill which will
    cost over a trillion dollars initially – much more later
    and almost certainly new taxes – NO new
    private sector jobs there either .

    Reduced our nuclear arsenal unilaterally
    No new jobs there either .

blog comments powered by Disqus