Why Didn't the Democrats End the Bush Tax Cuts When They Had the Chance?

[CuteOldGuy]

From the article: (And BTW, I think Reid is very funny in this press conference.)

TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts...why didn't Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?

REID: The tax cuts weren't about to expire then. So that's why we're doing it now.

TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.

REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.

REID: And that's why they were extended one year.

TWS: Why didn't they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?

REID: Next question.

The answer is simple. The effect of ending the Bush tax cuts on the economy will either be negligible, or bad. Had the Democrats done that, they would have had to take responsibility for the resulting failure of the repeal to have a significant effect on the economy. This way, however, they are given a non-issue with which to demagogue the Republicans to death.

That's why I think the Republicans should get out of the way when the Democrats start howling about this. Go ahead. Let them pass it. Little or nothing will happen. Make them discuss more pertinent issues.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ce_648760.html

[Sidewinder]

You oversimplified it a bit. As you say, repealing the Bush tax cuts will either have negligible effect on the economy, or it will have BAD effect on the economy. (Although you don't admit it, the immediate corollary of your correct observation is that there is no scenario in which repeal of the Bush tax cuts will be GOOD for the economy.)

If the Democrats had repealed the Bush tax cuts, they would then have either gotten to take the blame for the repeal having no effect - and people would have been hurting - or they would have gotten to take the blame making the economy EVEN WORSE.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts during the first half of the Obama Administration was quite clearly a lose-lose proposition for the Democrats, that WOULD have come back to haunt them at the next election.

As it stands, they're going to stonewall until after the November election. If a Satanic miracle occurs, and the Democrats regain control, there's no telling what they'll do. If they merely retain control of the Senate, they'll stonewall, let the cuts expire, and BLAME THE REPUBLICANS. With the help of the mainstream media. And more than a few Eccie-ers.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

You oversimplified it a bit. As you say, repealing the Bush tax cuts will either have negligible effect on the economy, or it will have BAD effect on the economy. (Although you don't admit it, the immediate corollary of your correct observation is that there is no scenario in which repeal of the Bush tax cuts will be GOOD for the economy.)

If the Democrats had repealed the Bush tax cuts, they would then have either gotten to take the blame for the repeal having no effect - and people would have been hurting - or they would have gotten to take the blame making the economy EVEN WORSE.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts during the first half of the Obama Administration was quite clearly a lose-lose proposition for the Democrats, that WOULD have come back to haunt them at the next election.

As it stands, they're going to stonewall until after the November election. If a Satanic miracle occurs, and the Democrats regain control, there's no telling what they'll do. If they merely retain control of the Senate, they'll stonewall, let the cuts expire, and BLAME THE REPUBLICANS. With the help of the mainstream media. And more than a few Eccie-ers.

Tis the truth I suspect...

On another note how do you become a lifetime Premium Member?

[Doove]

Maybe they didn't pass legislation to end the Bush tax cuts earlier, because there was no legislation required to end the Bush tax cuts. Duh.

They were already scheduled to expire on their own. The legislation is needed to determine who, if anyone, gets the extension.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

From the article: (And BTW, I think Reid is very funny in this press conference.)

TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts...why didn't Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?

REID: The tax cuts weren't about to expire then. So that's why we're doing it now.

TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.

REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.

REID: And that's why they were extended one year.

TWS: Why didn't they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?

REID: Next question.

The answer is simple. The effect of ending the Bush tax cuts on the economy will either be negligible, or bad. Had the Democrats done that, they would have had to take responsibility for the resulting failure of the repeal to have a significant effect on the economy. This way, however, they are given a non-issue with which to demagogue the Republicans to death.

That's why I think the Republicans should get out of the way when the Democrats start howling about this. Go ahead. Let them pass it. Little or nothing will happen. Make them discuss more pertinent issues.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ce_648760.html

Naw they were just sucking up to the Repubs hoping they would help with the health care bill.

[Sidewinder]

ekim008, maybe you weren't paying attention.

The Democrats didn't need the Republicans for the health care bill. They made that QUITE clear at the time.

[gnadfly]

They could have proposed and passed it in one day. Sure they would have been slaughtered at the polls worse than they were in 2010 but they still wouldn't have admitted it was due to their own actions.

Here's the rub. If you died in 2010 your estate paid NO ESTATE TAXES. Yankee's owner Steinbenner's family made off with billions tax free. The Dems could have done something to avert that and looked TOTALLY reasonable. But they didn't. Simply because Obama doesn't understand political capital. He's a dogmatic socialist.

[theaustinescorts]

Federal tax rates have never been lower, and that's why the deficits are sky high.

The people rightly know that they're paying more taxes than ever before and can't take it anymore, but they don't know it's not the Federal government that not taking it because no one is telling them the facts.

The facts are that it's the states, counties and cities that have jacked up all the rates in the last thirty years. All these funds go to MASSIVE INCREASES IN SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION [which have gotten us nowhere].

The share of the economy taken up by Federal spending has remained a constant 20 percent for the last fourty years.

It used to be that the Federal government took about 18 percent of GDP in taxes, but since the tax cuts beginning with the capital gains slashes of 1994 the Feds have only taken about 13 percent.

THEREFORE THE DEBT!!!

[CuteOldGuy]

"We don't have deficits because the people are taxed too little, we have deficits because Congress spends too much." - Ronald Reagan. Simply concept, but very true.

[icuminpeace]

You guys expect too much from Washington.

[theaustinescorts]

The deficit increased 6-fold under Reagan because tax revenues plunged and he couldn't decide where to cut spending.

When it came as to exactly where to cut Reagan just couldn't bring himself to cut anything.

So that's how we got where we are.

Here's my solution....

Take everything back to 1966.

Bring back the old higher Federal tax rates and keep Federal spending the same. That will balance the budget.

Slash State, County and City spending to what it was in 1966.

That means no more war on drugs, no more "4 policeman for every thousand citizens." No more police captains making 100,000 dollars a year. No more school teachers making 80,000 a year either. No more school superintendants making 300,000 dollars a year. No more "the highest rate of prison incarcerations in the world." No more "zero tolerance." No more "Medicaid pays for everything." When a baby is born defective and needs $400,000 in neonatal cost I would let him go.....it's what we used to do.

Stop spending money on "anger management," and "juvenile this and that," and FOR GODS SAKE GET RID OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

Leave those disfunctional families and people's private lives alone even if they're all messed up because the state can do no better.

Turn back the clock on all these utopian County and State social engineering projects.

Let us be free to be all messed up!

Oh and did I say GET THE POLICE OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS. Give the coach back his damn paddle.

[CuteOldGuy]

I don't think there is any evidence to show that tax revenue decreased under Reagan. In fact, revenues increased.

Further, we had balanced budgets toward the end of the Clinton administration. Clearly, the Reagan tax cuts did not get us where we are today.

You need to start finding data you can share to prove your points.

[icuminpeace]

Reagan, the guy that couldn't balance a budget. And please, don't give me the crap that the House controls the budget, the President has veto power. If he didn't like them, he didn't need to sign them. Heck, we haven't had an approved budget since the Dems took over.

And Dick Cheney's famous words - Deficit spending is good for the economy.

And some fools think Romney will be different. Now that's some funny shit. 2016 can't come soon enough, hopefully someone with a brain is running then.

[theaustinescorts]

After the 1981 tax cuts revenues plunged and over the next few years the rates were taken up again, but not enough to cover the massive spending increases Reagan PROPOSED every year in his budgets. The "Laffer Curve" about revenues increasing if tax rates were lowered lasted all of 11 months and then was discarded.

Reagan wasn't the ideologue he pretended to be.

When he was Governor he was very moderate, and when he became President he was very pragmatic.

He increased taxes several times and finally even warmed up to the communists at the end.

He was a nice person but not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[CuteOldGuy]

Reagan changed after he was shot. I don't know why. But you're right, he should have vetoed many more bills than he did.

Even if you're right, and revenues decreased under Reagan, which I still don't buy, we did have balanced budgets at the end of the Clinton Administration. Buy that time, the Reagan cuts were irrelevant. We spent a couple years spending less than what came in. Then we had W, and 9-11, and the fiscal dam broke. And now Obama is doubling down on the debt, and it is growing exponentially.

It's W and Obama getting us into this mess. Go ahead and restore the tax increases. None of that will matter until Congress stops spending. Do the math. There isn't enough aggregate income and/or wealth to tax even at 100% that will bring the debt down to a reasonable amount.