It's right out of the Reaganomics playbook, and "trickle-down economics" didn't work then, didn't work during Bush II, and won't magically and suddenly work now.

In fact, David Stockmann - Reagans economic adviser, one of the creators of Reaganomics - has been making the rounds, he is completely against extending the tax cut for the rich. And in favor of a long-term extension of unemployment benefits.

The Tax Deal
 

Not a done deal yet, but what is being reported this afternoon (and it's nice to see the GOP start to "compromise" for the first time in 2 years, although their compromise essentially lays in seemingly agreeing not to keep beating the shiat out of Obama and keep taking his lunch money). And it is notable that the most important thing to the GOP, the hill they die on, is pleasing the wealthy.

Update: must be done deal, WH announcement at 6:10pm tonight.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you continue to promote falsehoods.

The GOP didn't compromise in this deal with the White house? Uh sure they didn't.

Obama has given in to the GOP time and time again? On what exactly?

The liberal mindset is that you aren't compromising unless you are capitulating.

Nothing would be better for the GOP and worse for the Demorats than a primary challenge for Obama from someone MORE liberal than he is.

Excuse me? I suggest you pay a little more attention to politics on a daily basis. You're obviously clueless as to what the Republicans have been doing - and not doing - for the past two years. You want to know what exactly that is? Try looking at the Senate voting record for the past two years.

You think the GOP has been compromising for two years? You there there is overwhelming evidence of this? BAWAAAHAAAAA Go ahead - produce it.

And you still haven't been able to produce any economists to support your absurd contention that unemployment benefits don't put cash into the economy, don't immediately help the economy, don't prevent loss of jobs (for grocers, etc).

But Obama gives them too much?

So The GOP blocks everything and yet Obama bend over for them?

I guess (if it were true) that the GOP strategy was a good one?

Yup. That is true, it is exactly what Obama has been doing. He gave away single payer for the health bill, that angered his base, and last week, when he proactively came out and said, before negotiations, that he'd extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, his base went crazy. Don't forget one of his biggest campaign promises was not to extend that. Period.

BTW, this "deal" Obama made with the Senate may yet fall apart. All tax bills must come first from the House, anyway. Pelosi told Obama that some of her members are definitely not on board. There are GOP senators starting to publically defect on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, in favor of deficit reduction. The progressive wing of the House wants to hold the line at 1 million for tax cut extensions, period.

He gave away single payer? LOL. I guess you forgot that the obamacare debacle passed by a slim margin after buying off the skeptical. Single payer had no chance. Zero.

He said he would pass all the Bush tax ententions last week? Really? Did you see this on a wikileaks cable?

He has broken a lot of campaign promises but that isnt anything new for any politician. They say things to get elected and then once in office do things to stay elected. Hardly a big deal. How is Guantanamo working out?

If this deal doesnt get done it will be squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats. The GOP compromised and there is a fair deal that helps everyone, at least for a little while. Pelosi is a gift to the GOP that keeps on giving. She gave them the last election and is poised to give them the next one too. All in the name of redistribution!!!

pelosi = free gop votes..instead of empowering her still[ gutsiest move ive ever seen mav]they should be acting like she was the problem and exile her to
the most limited access possible. but they dont and wont..more free votes for gop..keep up the good work!! lol

Single payer was overwhelmingly supported by 70% of the public at the start of the healthcare debate.

Then the lies started about "death panels".

You really don't pay much attention to politics on a daily basis, do you?

Actually it was well before that. Here's the quote from November 6th:

"The White House signaled Wednesday that President Barack Obama is ready to cut a deal on the Bush-era tax cuts — accepting a temporary extension of the cuts for the wealthiest Americans to win renewal of tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44990.html and elsewhere.

Not in the eyes of his base. We'll see.

the jack booted thugs at the gop have done it again..you have to admit riot.your in deep trouble and it will only get worse as the jobs forcast thats not faked in some chart becomes more and more in view. people dont have 'hope' and they are sick of 1/2 'change'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46019.html

i like this one..bush as the us was fed up with him still had more juice than
obama..hmm

I'm not happy at all Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich. What happened to all the deficit hawks on the right, too? The deficit, and the unemployed American, turns out to be far less important than supporting the wealthy for the GOP. Good luck with that in 2012. The left will run a progressive against Obama's weak centrist position in the primaries at this point.

I've watched and supported the GOP for decades. They have failed me again, and again, and again. And the current incarnation of the GOP is a joke of itself. The GOP now is what used to be just the far right crazy wing of the 1980's. They don't even accept social programs that Reagan or Nixon promoted at this point. And their fiscal irresponsibility reached unimaginable new heights during Bush II.

Do you like "all" of the article you quote?

wow did you read what you wrote..the unemployed american may get a new job now..even socalist need jobs at some point..we like to call it ..get off the couch economics.

In what fantasy world do you think that extending tax cuts, the same tax cuts that have been present during the loss of 800,000 jobs since 2001 and 2003, will magically create jobs?

"Trickle down economics" didn't work for Reagan (his deficit deepened), they didn't work for Bush, and they are not magically going to work now.

As I said before, even Reagan's economic advisor, Mr. Trickle Down himself David Stockmann, says do NOT increase the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it's bad for the economy!

Let's hope there are tons of jobs suddenly created with the next 2 years, for the GOP's sake. Because the sunset on these tax cuts, if passed, will be right in the middle of the election. Actually, we need 4 million jobs right now, because that's who is losing their jobless benefits in December that this "deal" won't cover.

without calling names..and its hard..if the wealthier people ie small owners dont keep the tax breaks they have there is no way they will hire new or stay at least the way they are..do you agree..

I would think revenue is an indicator of jobs.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-bush-tax-cuts

I just googled and searched, and I could not find one economist who said extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest would create jobs. I did find where even Dick Cheney says they do not :D But he's not an economist.

Find me one economist that says this is true, that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs.

I can find 20 that say not to do it. Find me one that says it's a good idea. Go ahead, convince me to change my mind.

Tax cuts that reward putting money in a business owners pocket does not make that person chose to rather invest it into his business. It takes money out of the business. People do not hire more, produce more, make more capital investment until the consumer demand is there, first. They do not do any of that just because they have a little extra money in their pocket. That's a good way to go broke - have more business than you have demand for!

And let's get straight what the "wealthiest" pay in taxes: it averages about 17-18% (because they have deductions and accountants and tax shelters). And the tax cuts for those up to $250K? That is on adjusted gross, not gross. So extending tax cuts up $250 covers people whose gross is up to $300 at least.

----------------------
And this appears to NOT be a done deal in the House:

ok lets say you are a small busness owner with some of your own money invested. you have 4 employees.and not making head way you keep employee number 4 on because hes loyal shows up on time ect. now if you lose your tax break. what happens.. hes gone period..you down size..in hopes of the big economic bounce back your waiting for..and waiting for..now this owner may make 300k or higher..whats good about this picture.
there arent enough chairs..

As an experienced small business owner I'll say the mistake in your business scenario above is that it's unrealistic: keeping on one employee too many when "you're not making headway". That's a very bad business decision. You don't run a business as a charity. Losing a small tax break has zero to do with that poorly run business in the example. It was doomed with the much larger expense of an employee the business couldn't afford.

And any owner taking out $300K from a business that "isn't making head way" is a complete moron. "Some" of your own money invested? Try all of it. That's how small businesses work.

Look at this "deal" that Obama has made - first, it is all unfunded. All of it.

Secondly, look at what was important to the GOP: they voted no on tax cuts to the middle class, they voted no on tax cuts for those up to a million, they voted yes only for tax cuts to those millionaires and above. They voted yes for lowering the estate tax from 55% to 35%. Where are the GOP priorities? Not jobs, not deficit reduction, not the unemployed. Only with concerns of the wealthy.

Aside from the above, it's a massive unfunded stimulus bill (payroll tax deductions, unemployment, etc) Now, I've already seen details that say it should generate about 176 billion in stimulus, which is a good, job creating thing.

But the key is "unfunded". Adding to the deficit. The tax cut for those earning over 1 million should be thrown out to help fund this.

It's not about facts. It's not about increasing revenue either.

While admitting that I doubt the accuracy of your 70% number, I didn't know that the public was going to be voting on the measure. They had a majority in the House, Senate and Presidency and single payer was never close except in the wet dreams of the huffington crowd.

Uh your quote says "is ready to cut a deal". It isnt as though he was passing them as a matter of policy. He was negotiating. You know like give and take? It is part of being a politician.

His base? He won the election because he captured (tricked?)disgruntled Republicans and independents. Does anyone seriously believe that the lefties are going to try to run some schmuck like Feinstein against him? Or that they will suddenly vote against him in the 2012 election?

He is finally making deals that can only benefit him. The left is voting for him anyway, he can claim that he is a compromiser which is what indy's want and he can claim victory if the economy moves in the right direction and can blame the GOP for forcing this policy on him if the economy tanks.

The point of the healthcare debate is that Obama started too far towards compromise. Just like he did before this, saying he's willing to extend tax cuts for the rich before negotiations even started.

Obama got a second massive stimulus bill out of this, which will certainly help the economy and jobs, but nothing here is paid for. Nothing. I think that is a huge mistake.

I hope the House progressives holds out for eliminating tax cuts for those over 1 million just to pay for half of it. Shoot, go for 2 million. That'll still pay for nearly half of it.

The small business community should be far more thrilled with what Obama did here for them, than what the GOP did for the minority of the richest (making sure millionaires and billionaires keep their extra $25,000 a year).

Here's a reasonable summation from YahooFinance (Greg somebody, their financial columnist)

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

Maybe he simply needs to be told we need program cuts of 900 billion?

the vast majority of that 900b is from not allowing the 250k and up tax cut to expire, but you knew that.

You simply can't raise or lower taxes when you are in a depression and carrying all this debt. Is it a desperate attempt to even have an iota of a chance of getting re-elcted?

From Huffington via NY Times

"$60 Billion: The approximate amount that extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year -- which Congress seems on the verge of doing -- will cost a year, in inflation-adjusted terms."

So instead of swallowing the $60 billion per year or $120 for 2. He adds $780 billion to even things out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_792140.html

are you upset that the 6.2% the gov takes out of your paycheck for SS will be reduced 2% for a year?

I love that. I really am not interested in paying for your retirement when I will never see that money in return.

Counting money not collected is money lost is only available to the govt.

In simple terms, if you make 200k a year and now your taxes arent goig to be raised 3%, the govt says it lost 6 k on you even though they never had that money. Imagine if we could do that?

The problem with our govt isnt that it collects too little, the problem is it spends too much.

An entitlement program for the working!!!

LOL

oh ok. Now it was all Obama's idea?

Unemployment
 

Since people are allowed to collect unemployment for just about ever it seems, there should be a rule added to unemployment.

If you are collecting unemployment (meaning you do not have a job), you must complete 80 hours of community service per month to continue to collect. That leaves you another 80 business hours per month to find a job.

The only way you are exempt from the community service is if you are going to school full time while collecting.

So, you are either going to benifit the community through your work, or you will benefit the community by furthering your education. win/win for all involved.

you should also have to prove that you are actively looking for work. Make photocopies of applications that you have to submit if when you are asking for your free check.

Have a minimum of 20 applications per month to continue to get unemployment. If you didnt apply for 20 job, reduce the check that they get. allow them to only collect $100 per week if you arent actively job searching.

I have a few friends who are just taking advantage of this unlimited umemployment and it is really disheartening. One girl is even making 500 per week stripping "under the table" on top of collecting her check.. from the company she was fired from (not even layed off) in May 2009. its ridiculous (I let her know that every time i see her also)

I thought most strippers stood on top of tables?

true... and she looks very good doing it.. but i tell her to stop stealing my tax dollars!

The real money is in the 'under the table' moves.

so is this 13 month unemployment extension on TOP of the 99 weeks the unemployed already get?

can people really get 155 weeks of unemployment?

If that is the case... its sickening.

I know for a fact that a lot of umemployed refuse to find a job that will pay them similar to what they are getting in unemployment. they can get a job that pays $300 per week.. but dont take it cause they'd rather make $300 per week by doing nothing.

Lazy mofo's.. i wonder how many people are committing fraud against the system. If uncle sam finds out that you dont apply for jobs cause you make the same with unemployment.. you should be forced to pay back every cent you collected plus 15% interest... or go to a Siberian work camp.

What difference does it make? The Democrats will find someone to give money to. As a matter of fact I hope Riot doesnt take your suggestion to her superiors at Daily Kos because next thing we know Pelosi will be creating another govt regulatory agency for a few hundred billion (unions backed naturally) that monitors the unemployed.

they should make familys that are on welfare for more than 6 months with more than 3 kids get fixed.