Dems hold up UB benefits and one wants to filibuster UB benefits

[Damocles]

No; keeping rates the same for an additional period of time has a price tag in terms of legislation.

That's really horrible spin, Damo. The stimulus package would have been over a trillion with what you're suggesting, and would have been presented that way.

Which changes nothing at all about what I am saying. He could have added it to that stimulus or passed it easily without much debate during the previous two years. Get in front of the problem so that it doesn't come down to giving up what you don't want later. Instead his priority was to force feed the US a bill that malformed health care.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In the US, we usually calculate the cost of a package by presenting all of the additional revenue loss and spending increases we predict it will have over a 10-year period compared to what would've happened if it hadn't passed (and everything stays the same). If we include a tax cut extension in the stimulus, obviously that decreases predicted revenue compared to what it would've been had everything stayed the same, and it has to be tacked on to the total 10-year cost of the package.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ridiculous, it would tack nothing at all to the stimulus to simply extend rates already in place for the specific tax brackets. It was stupid to wait until it was down to the wire to get this done, well stupid if you actually wanted to raise taxes on the "rich". Any excuse in a pinch though, Nigel. Just so long as you can make it sorta sound like it makes sense.

It kinda sorta makes sense because it's true. Extending the tax rates has a negative impact on debt and the deficit and would therefore been included in the CBO score for the stimulus bill. A rough estimate for the "middle class" tax cut portion of this deal is about $383 billion. If you add that to the $787 billion stimulus cost, you are over $1.1 trillion. Given that the stimulus bill was whittled down to $787 to appease "centrist" Senators so it could pass, there is simply no basis for the argument that a $1.1 trillion bill would pass when they balked at $830 billion.

And I know you love to criticize Obama, but he actually got a deal done that most people are grudgingly agreeing with. Typically, that's called "leadership" and "bipartisanship." It's not necessarily my taste, but moderate independents like yourself usually eat that shit up. What gives?

 

[Bonestorm]

Keeping rates the same adds nothing at all to anything. If I charge you $1 for a bag of chips today, it doesn't change anything if I charge you $1 for a bag of chips tomorrow.

What I think your boggle is, is the UB portion. I'm not speaking about that. If he had foresight he could have extended the tax rates for the specific groups he wanted long ago, thus taking it off the table now. It costs nothing at all to extend rates.

Hilarious.

The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years, including two years of relief for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The estimated cost would be $458 billion, according to earlier numbers from the Treasury Department.

The bulk of that cost -- $383 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000. The rest -- roughly $75 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

 

[Onceler]

Which changes nothing at all about what I am saying. He could have added it to that stimulus or passed it easily without much debate during the previous two years. Get in front of the problem so that it doesn't come down to giving up what you don't want later. Instead his priority was to force feed the US a bill that malformed health care.

He could have pushed the stimulus over a trillion and still passed it "easily", and "without much debate"?

Really?

Let's just make sure we're on the same page, here: I'm on a planet called Earth, which has an oxygen-rich atmosphere, one moon and has carbon-based lifeforms. Does that describe your basic surroundings as well?

 

[Damocles]

It kinda sorta makes sense because it's true. Extending the tax rates has a negative impact on debt and the deficit and would therefore been included in the CBO score for the stimulus bill. A rough estimate for the "middle class" tax cut portion of this deal is about $383 billion. If you add that to the $787 billion stimulus cost, you are over $1.1 trillion. Given that the stimulus bill was whittled down to $787 to appease "centrist" Senators so it could pass, there is simply no basis for the argument that a $1.1 trillion bill would pass when they balked at $830 billion.

And I know you love to criticize Obama, but he actually got a deal done that most people are grudgingly agreeing with. Typically, that's called "leadership" and "bipartisanship." It's not necessarily my taste, but moderate independents like yourself usually eat that shit up. What gives?

Or it makes no sense because it isn't. The assumptions sent to the CBO included the rate extensions that Obama promised during the campaign or they were deliberately dishonest. You can pick which one it was. Either the "stimulus" costed more than a trillion, and the US people were deliberately misled by a D supermajority, or they gave the correct numbers to the CBO that assumed that those rates would continue as promised.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or it makes no sense because it isn't. The assumptions sent to the CBO included the rate extensions that Obama promised during the campaign or they were deliberately dishonest. You can pick which one it was. Either the "stimulus" costed more than a trillion, and the US people were deliberately misled by a D supermajority, or they gave the correct numbers to the CBO that assumed that those rates would continue as promised.

Instead of just making shit up as you go along, you could just back down from the ridiculous assertion that the tax rate cuts could easily have been included in the stimulus bill. Just a thought.

 

[Damocles]

Instead of just making shit up as you go along, you could just back down from the ridiculous assertion that the tax rate cuts could easily have been included in the stimulus bill. Just a thought.

Or you could admit you were wrong and the CBO estimates included that extension. Just a thought. The reality is, the CBO estimates assumed continued tax rates. It would not have cost any "more" to have assured those rates at that time.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

only if the repubs get their pound of flash in the form of tax breaks for the wealthy any post that does not include this qualifies for stfu

Yea...his post kinda makes you wonder if Yurt works for Fox News? LOL

 

[Bonestorm]

Or you could admit you were wrong and the CBO estimates included that extension. Just a thought. The reality is, the CBO estimates assumed continued tax rates. It would not have cost any "more" to have assured those rates at that time.

Here's the CBO cost estimate for the stimulus bill:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9989/hr1conference.pdf

Show me where the tax cut extension is included in this cost assessment. Please keep in mind that the CBO has projected that extending the tax cuts for married couples earning less than $250,000 and individuals earning less than $200,000 would cost $1.9 trillion over 10 years, whereas the total 10 year cost of the stimulus bill was $787 billion.

Good luck.

 

[Onceler]

Or you could admit you were wrong and the CBO estimates included that extension. Just a thought. The reality is, the CBO estimates assumed continued tax rates. It would not have cost any "more" to have assured those rates at that time.

Again, that's utterly ridiculous. Making it part of the stimulus package would have pushed that package over $1 trillion, making it literally impossible to pass.

 

[Damocles]

Again, that's utterly ridiculous. Making it part of the stimulus package would have pushed that package over $1 trillion, making it literally impossible to pass.

Then your choice is that the numbers given to the CBO were deliberately dishonest and assumed that Obama's promise that nobody would have one iota of their taxes raised if they made less than $250,000 per year would never materialize.

You don't get to have it both ways, either Obama never planned to keep his promise, or they deliberately misled people to pretend their stimulus would cost less than it would.

This also assumes that there was never any other opportunity to pass the specific rates he wanted to keep in all of the two years previous. Methinks you are using any excuse to pretend that his hands were tied. They weren't. Had he used even a tiny bit of foresight he'd have passed his rates before now so that this fight would have been moot. Victory was in his hands, but his poor leadership and inability to multi-task cost you the ability to tax the "rich"...

 

[Onceler]

Then your choice is that the numbers given to the CBO were deliberately dishonest and assumed that Obama's promise that nobody would have one iota of their taxes raised if they made less than $250,000 per year would never materialize.

You don't get to have it both ways, either Obama never planned to keep his promise, or they deliberately misled people to pretend their stimulus would cost less than it would.

What kind of spin is this, now?

Why is that "my choice"? Here's my contention, Damo: you're a partisan idiot if you think that that Obama could have put the tax cut extension into the stimulus and passed it easily. Because it would have taken the stimulus package over $1 trillion. Your math on that is certainly "fuzzy."

What a weird sidetrack you took on this thread. I appreciate the fact that you dug a hole for yourself, but honestly, it's just a lot easier at this point to say you were wrong.

 

[Damocles]

What kind of spin is this, now?

Why is that "my choice"? Here's my contention, Damo: you're a partisan idiot if you think that that Obama could have put the tax cut extension into the stimulus and passed it easily. Because it would have taken the stimulus package over $1 trillion. Your math on that is certainly "fuzzy."

What a weird sidetrack you took on this thread. I appreciate the fact that you dug a hole for yourself, but honestly, it's just a lot easier at this point to say you were wrong.

It isn't spin, it is reality. Obama promised that nobody making less than a certain amount would ever be taxed more. Either you assume that such rates continue or you are lying to everybody involved.

 

[Damocles]

BTW - The tax rates are assumed in the estimated division B revenues.

 

[Onceler]

It isn't spin, it is reality. Obama promised that nobody making less than a certain amount would ever be taxed more. Either you assume that such rates continue or you are lying to everybody involved.

Barring some weird turn of events, no one - even those over $250K - will see their taxes go up over at least the next 2 years.

So - how is Obama lying again?

Dumb, Damo. Really dumb....

 

[Bonestorm]

Then your choice is that the numbers given to the CBO were deliberately dishonest and assumed that Obama's promise that nobody would have one iota of their taxes raised if they made less than $250,000 per year would never materialize.

You don't get to have it both ways, either Obama never planned to keep his promise, or they deliberately misled people to pretend their stimulus would cost less than it would.

It's OK to just admit that you were wrong without compounding your initial error with more errors.

This also assumes that there was never any other opportunity to pass the specific rates he wanted to keep in all of the two years previous. Methinks you are using any excuse to pretend that his hands were tied. They weren't. Had he used even a tiny bit of foresight he'd have passed his rates before now so that this fight would have been moot. Victory was in his hands, but his poor leadership and inability to multi-task cost you the ability to tax the "rich"...

You're the half-wit that suggested that the tax cuts could have been included in the stimulus bill. You're bitching about your own assumption.

And again, here we have a president that reached across the aisle and struck a deal that most people can live with while fulfilling an important campaign promise (that you never hesitate to mention) and you are lambasting him for his failed leadership. Basically, you're arguing that Obama should have been more liberal. It's hysterical.

It perfectly demonstrates the fact that regardless of what Obama does, Republicans will criticize him for it.

 

[Bonestorm]

BTW - The tax rates are assumed in the estimated division B revenues.

No, they aren't. Those are the actual tax cuts included in the stimulus bill, not the ones that were not included.

And again, since I'm fairly certain that we can agree that $1.9 trillion is a lot larger than $787 billion, we ought not have any problem agreeing that the tax cuts extensions were not included in the cost estimate. But, here we are.

 

[Damocles]

Barring some weird turn of events, no one - even those over $250K - will see their taxes go up over at least the next 2 years.

So - how is Obama lying again?

Dumb, Damo. Really dumb....

*sigh*

If they assumed they would not continue to pretend that the "cost" was less than a trillion on one bill, they either lied directly about the cost to pass a bad bill, or they assumed that Obama was lying about tax rates.

Methinks they did neither as the revenue estimates reflect a continuation of tax rates. That "cost" was already in there and including actual extension of the rates would not have killed the bill due to "cost". It might have killed it due to Rs saying that no taxes should increase during a downturn, but it would not have killed it due to "cost".

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It kinda sorta makes sense because it's true. Extending the tax rates has a negative impact on debt and the deficit and would therefore been included in the CBO score for the stimulus bill. A rough estimate for the "middle class" tax cut portion of this deal is about $383 billion. If you add that to the $787 billion stimulus cost, you are over $1.1 trillion. Given that the stimulus bill was whittled down to $787 to appease "centrist" Senators so it could pass, there is simply no basis for the argument that a $1.1 trillion bill would pass when they balked at $830 billion.

And I know you love to criticize Obama, but he actually got a deal done that most people are grudgingly agreeing with. Typically, that's called "leadership" and "bipartisanship." It's not necessarily my taste, but moderate independents like yourself usually eat that shit up. What gives?

So... bottom line what you are saying is...

The Bush Tax cuts DID benefit the middle and lower classes.

Thanks.