Oh boy…
So we pick up more seats then we have in decades and this “compromise” is what we get?
President Obama outlined the “framework” of a deal with congressional leaders for a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax cuts in all income tax brackets, a compromise that he said would avert the “chilling prospect” of a tax increase next month for all Americans.
Obama, at a White House news conference Monday evening, renewed his calls for tax relief targeting the middle class and his criticism of making tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent.
But in the end, he said, a compromise must be reached before the Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year, or else ordinary Americans would become “collateral damage for political warfare in Washington.”
“I am not willing to let that happen,” he said.Obama outlined a deal with congressional leaders that would extend the expiring tax cuts for all Americans temporarily for two years. Unemployment benefits for long-term jobless would through next year. The estate tax rate would be renewed at the previously lower rate temporarily.
The Obama administration also is proposing a one-year payroll tax reduction that sources say would cut the amount contributed to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.
“I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like,” he said, but “we cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems.”
Check out the video at Hot Air of Obama sounding so irritated that he had to work with the opposition. Krauthammer believes it was a speech directed towards the Kos kiddies and DummiesU crowd, maybe so, but this deal is not what we should of accepted.
And Ramesh Ponnuru described the speech succinctly:
Takeaway: Obama is better than those nasty Republicans, and also better than those Democrats who won’t cut deals with them.
As for the deal itself, we all know spending needs to be cut and knowing this we agreed to extend unemployment. This makes sense? Hugh Hewitt:
This is like TARP without the urgency of a genuine financial crisis pushing the bill forward. GOPers who vote for this will find that vote stapled to them for years to come, or until they lose to a primary challenger in 2012.
This goes to the inability of the GOP to ever fight on key issues, and reflects the same ill-considered negotiation strategy that led to the Gang of 14 and the immigration compromise of three years ago. The country just voted overwhelmingly for low taxes and spending cuts and the GOP just agreed to much more spending and temporary tax cuts which will not provide businesses with the environment of stability necessary to investment and job growth.
The scope of this miscalculation is deeply dispiriting.
Agreed. But Grover Norquist makes some compelling arguments for the deal:
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, tells National Review Online that a tentative tax deal between President Obama and the GOP is “a much bigger victory than people see” for the Republicans.
Of course the deal isn’t perfect, Norquist says. He would have preferred a permanent extension of the income tax rates as opposed to just two years, but thinks Republicans should be thrilled at the prospect of revisiting the tax debate in 2012, when Obama is up for re-election, especially when the agreed-upon extension of jobless benefits will ensure that the unemployment rate remains artificially high.
~~~Norquist says Republicans should be especially pleased with the proposal to re-establish the estate tax at a rate of 35 percent (for two years), given Democrats’ desire to return to a permanent rate of 55 percent after going all of 2010 without any estate tax whatsoever. “Think about how badly Democrats wanted [a return to a 55 percent rate],” he says. “They were willing to suck it up for a whole year…all those lucky dead people who weren’t sufficiently looted.” Now 35 percent becomes the new baseline, and Democrats are fighting a losing battle.
If the Democrats are losing this fight now, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, it will only get much worse for them when Republicans take over the House and install a filibuster-proof coalition in the Senate in 2011, as the debate over taxes continues in the next Congress.
And Chris Edwards from the Cato Institute also makes some good points:
● The extension of unemployment benefits is bad policy, which, ironically, will hurt the Democrats politically, because it will keep the unemployment rate artificially high.
● It’s good to get the tax-cut extension enacted now so that the budget focus next year can be spending cuts and more spending cuts.
● The end of Obama’s Make Work Pay credit is a good thing, because it was mainly just a spending subsidy program hidden in the tax code.
● The next tax deal between President Obama and the GOP should be to enact the fiscal commission’s corporate-tax-rate-cut proposal.
● The unified front shown by Republicans on this tax extension was very important. Centrist deficit hawks dream that Republicans will just give in and sign on to big tax hikes in some future budget summit, as occurred in 1990. Today’s news suggests that won’t happen for the time being.
● The message of the election was not that Americans thought that their taxes were too low, but that the government was too big. If the Republicans can show a similar united front on spending cuts next year, we could really make some budget progress.
So I have to say I’m torn on this one. We won a huge election recently, much of it because of the fiscal irresponsibility of those in power, and this is what we got?
I just can’t see this as a win for our side.
OHbama gets another year of unemployments free money so the DC GOP doesn’t look bad in the deal.
Kill rinos. Kill them now. Kill them in2012
For everyone who says that extending the unemployment benefits will just extend the number of people unemployed I have to say, BS.
If anyone thinks that the unemployed are just sitting around the house watching the TV and eating crackers because they get too much money to go back to work, then they obviously are not one of the 15 or so million without a job.
1st, unemployment is paid as a percentage of what you were earning when you were working. Typically it is 60% of your normal pay *IF* you made less than about $40k. If you made more than that, well too awful damn bad because they don’t pay any more. Hope you put away a lot of savings or have no debt to match your previous earnings. And good luck on selling the house or cars to reduce the debt now.
2nd, To collect unemployment in every state I know of, you have to look for and apply for work several times a week. If you turn down a interview or a job offer, you lose your benefits. This may not seem like much, but when there are so few jobs available, it doesn’t take long before you’ve applied to every employer in town more than once.
3rd, With all the uncertainty and fluctuation in prices, everyone wants to make more money and get completely out of debt. Even people without a job. By just try to when all you make is spent on food and housing.
If people are forced of unemployment the resulting economic damage will send the US into a spiral with no end in site.
Would Harry Truman have done this? I understand that there always, in the end, has to be a compromise, and that liberals are never, ever going to get all that they want. That’s the nature of politics. The problem is that Obama is not pulling out all the stops to get the most progressive final deal possible. He’s not out there on the stump giving the Republicans heat for their unpopular positions. I think that both Carter and Clinton, moderates though they were on domestic policy, would have fought harder for, and achieved, a more progressive final settlement had they been faced with a situation like this.
The Class of 2010 doesn’t get sworn in until next year. Currently, Congress is the same cast of characters we’ve since January 2009, give or take a special election or two. The Republicans’ bargaining power has shifted since Nov. 2, but they are still a minority in the House, and even more of a minority in the Senate. There is room for considerable Democrat mischief for the next month or so.
I’m not sure what to think about extending unemployment benefits. I still have a job. If and when I lose it, I may see things from a different perspective.
The big issue is the employment-killing economic uncertainty and hostility to private enterprise exhibited by the current government. Exactly what is done or not done to mitigate the effects of this primary cause is a lesser issue. Quit scaring the crap out of businesses . Quit blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on ineffective ‘stimulus’ payments to favored groups.
Here’s the latest LeakyWeaks:
Hussein Obama, the lame duck, socialist low-life, whose popularity is lower than low, is apparently being forced by the GOP to surrender to the extension of tax breaks for everyone, rich and middle class.
Now the liberals are going to fry Obama’s butt and hang him out to dry for giving in. But what else could the low-life do; the force is now with the GOP and conservatives.
That much is as it should be.
Unemployment extension is bad but the tax cuts for all Americans is good. Republicans will just have to settle for another 0-bama campaing lie and slapping Democrats around the room one more time. At least 0-bama is learning but his tone is still defiant. A good first step though.
Ciz has a valid point.. What would happen to the millions who would have no income and no chance of a job? Sure there are a few slackers, but the majority want work and there are no jobs. Starving families wont force Obama to do anything and why should families starve to try and force Obama to give up his Socialism. It costs a fortune to buy a few groceries now; I’d hate to think of trying to feed a family. It’s time to force the issues and make the public aware of the poor choices being made. I’d much rather feed our own people than continue to give aid to dictators and Islamic terrorists. The idea of bailing out European banks and American unions with billions is obscene. We have priorities and they are here at home.
@ AdrianS, #5:
Uh, no. Obama has consistently advocated tax relief for over 97% of all American taxpayers since before he was elected. Last Thursday the democratic House majority passed a bill that would have done exactly that–with House republicans voting almost unanimously against it. Obama knew for a fact that this would be blocked in the Senate; that republicans would prevent it from coming to a vote. So, it was either give in to the demands of republicans for fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for the richest 3% in America, or see all of middle-class America get hit with large tax increases next month, and see millions of struggling American families lose their unemployment compensation in a matter of a couple of weeks. That was the choice. Obama did what he thought was right. He’ll get no thanks from republicans for it; they’ll be back to blaming him for the national debt before the dust settles. He’ll also lose points with the left.
The only object of the republican strategy was to obtain tax cut extensions for the richest 3% in America, no matter the long-term consequences to the national debt—and for that they would have screwed the other 97% without batting an eye.
The GOP can wrap that up in whatever spin they want. I have no doubt that they will. But the simple facts are still the facts. It is what it is.
@ Greg…Meanwhile He wants to Over Regulate, Over Tax and continue His Class Warfare on most of America’s Largest Employers…a real recipe for continued layoffs or setting conditions where Employers will not hire. When you wake up, you may be part of those looking for a job…
You still just don’t get it!
tech sgt., you are absolutely right, my husband lost his 60k job last year and has been trying to find a job. he is in his 50s , so he is competing with the 30 year olds trying to find work. it is tough for him and he has never been on unemployment before, in fact he worked for his company for at least thirty years. he started with his company when he was 16years old. the hard part is watching how this affects his manhood. he has always been our leader of the household and his ego has taken a hit. it has been very hard for him to accept unemployment, but we still have our home to pay for and taxes to pay. we are trying to hang on to our house, however, if the situation doesn’t change for us we will have to try and sell, if we can sell our home, nothing is moving around here.
i pray for my country that we can get some leaders that know what they are doing and get us out of this financial mess.
Poor Greg still doesn’t get it. What 0-bama fails to understand is how our economy works and creates jobs. Of course that would mean that he would have to admit that 0-bama doesn’t understand and due to completeness of his brainwash this revelation will likely not ever reach his common sense threshold. At some point action speak louder than words. His Teleprompter has not produced one job!!
to those supporting the unemployment extension:
Folks have not caught on yet. Unemployment Insurance was designed as a short-term support for a cyclic downturn in employment. But this is much, much different. The jobs lost in this depression are NOT coming back, ever. So the politicians have turned UI into a new welfare program, at extememly high benefit levels.
As both Socialists (Republicans) and Communists (Democrats) continue to expand Government over every single aspect of American life, the resulting economic doldrums will continue ad infinitum.
The tax cut extension does not lower taxes, it just keeps the increase away for now. There is no stimulus effect. The 2 percent Sociail Security “holiday”, while a stimulus, sets a terrible precedent for that Ponzi scheme.
This continues to be the beginning of a long slide down. Much more wealth and American assets will need to be “lost” and if not “lost” then transfered to foreign creditors before a balance is restored.
With almost 1/2 of the country composed of non-productive citizens, it can’t really be “turned around”. Those that can’t find any work or have some private means of survival will need to cue up in bread lines eventually. The scumbags in Washington may try to delay this as long as they can by going into further debt, but that will only mean that the Chinese will be operating the bread lines here instead of your neighbors.
Like the Irish, Americans who can’t find work need to emigrate to other countries where productivity is appreciated and rewarded instead of taxed and held in contempt.
Only when the non-productive here have all governmental support withdrawn will they become hungry enough, and cold enough in the winter, to do the work at the levels avaliable.
No one should ever be allowed to receive any form of assistance without commensurate work, even if it is picking up trash on the highways, working in co-op day care centers, caring for the elderly, etc. Municipal Recovery boards composed of unpaid citizen commissioners should be setting up such work effforts for all on assistance. If you don’t want to do that work, don’t take the assistance. You can look for other work on your “own” off hours time.
No work – no benefits. Slackers can starve. The Chinese will see to it that we learn this.
The Big Boo
“So I have to say I’m torn on this one. We won a huge election recently, much of it because of the fiscal irresponsibility of those in power, and this is what we got?
I just can’t see this as a win for our side. ”
I think you might be jumping the gun here – our side, so to speak, is not yet in office. I don’t think you ought to be painting the new Congress with the current brush. I think your points are good, but your upset is misdirected. The fiscally irresponsible are still writing legislation.
The Republicans pretty much had to accept this compromise. Otherwise THEY would have been held responsible for taxes going up – the lamestream media would have seen to that. I would have preferred that the tax rates were “permanent”, but at least the donks will have to defend raising taxes again just before the 2012 elections.
Too many posters are missing the point.
This is the Obama agenda: bankrupt the country.
His scholarly master Cloward and Pliven (sp?) spelled it out.
Once the dollar is worthless and all assets are destroyed, a true Socialist Utopian Paradise can be instituted.
Note: no spending curtailment is in view.
Hyperinflation and economic collapse (think Weimar Republc) are on the way.
OT is right about Greg. He doesn’t get it. In fact, he doesn’t want to get it. He pretends to be a moderate liberal, but he is nothing of the sort. He just knows better than to rant. A leftist form of taqiya, if you will. Like I’ve said before, Greg does little more than attack, attack, attack. Refute one attack and he just launches another and another. Hardly the mark of a moderate.
The GOP was in a tough spot in a way. If they had stuck to their guns on tax cuts for all and refused the unemployment extension, they would have been savaged by the media and a lot of people affected by the bad economy. On the other hand, small businesses take the hit having to pay out UI even longer. That doesn’t help the economy either.
Hey Greg—– The left kept saying that the tax cuts were for the rich and that no one else got them, now you want to say that 95% of Americans should keep tax cuts, tax cuts that your side said they didn’t get. Which is it? As usual the left lies and tells half truths. Tax cuts for people that never got (according to the left) them is the new mantra of the left. Besides these are not tax cuts they are an extension of the present tax tables, your side can’t even get that right. The argument on the table is extension of the tax tables now in affect, or tax increases, so where do you get TAX CUTS from that?
And how many RINO votes did he QUIETLY buy, under the table and off the record of course, for the DREAM act? Republicans win an unprecedented number of seats, the mood of the American people is crystal clear yet the RINO elitist “upper crust” of the DC ruling class will provide the democrat party with 40 million new voters, currently known as Mexican illegals!!!! And these clowns will continue to sell out the nation and the American public in exchange for friendly puff pieces in the NY Times and invitations to the “right” parties in DC.
#2 TSgt Ciz and #10 Southern Sue; let me point out a few things to you that you seem to not understand. Unemployment insurance pays you if you get laid off. But it is exactly what it is called “insurance”: it is a hedge against being laid off, but it is not (or meant to be) a welfare program. You pay into it, and the insurer (the states) say that you will receive so many weeks of benefits, in the event you lose your job. And unlike Social Security benefits, the return is much greater.
No one, and I do mean no one, has ever paid enough in payroll taxes to cover three years of unemployment benefits. So consequently, fellow Americans, who are paying taxes now, are picking up the tab for those who have not found a job after six month (26 weeks being the standard length of benefits, until recently). So in actuality, once you have collected your 26 weeks, you are then receiving money from fellow taxpayers that is no more than basic welfare under a different name.
Now, you also don’t mention that the federal government will get its share of unemployment benefits as it is taxable income. You also don’t mention that most states have a rule that if you are offered a job that pays less than you were earning when you were laid off, that you can turn it down. So if your husband was earning $60K/yr and a prospective employer offered him $55K/yr, he can refuse that job. Consequently, your husband is drawing a paycheck from the American taxpayer, and he has no work expenses.
There is something really wrong with a nation full of able-bodied Americans that have been unemployed for two years but haven’t managed to come up with a way to earn at least a portion of what they did. I know a number of people who have been laid off, and they have created their own jobs. One woman I know has started an alterations business, and she currently has more customers than she can handle because people are willing to pay $25 to get a garment altered instead of laying out $100 for a new one. I know a man who has started a computer service. He keeps books for others, or inventory lists or anything else that people need to have done on a computer. He was a carpenter, but none has talent that lies in just one area. He is not making what he did as a journeyman carpenter, but he also has no work related expenses (as gas goes up) and has eliminated the day care expense his wife and he had because they both worked out of the home. I know another man who worked for ATT at $26/hr who now works for Lowe’s at $14/hr. When he was laid off, he never collected one damn dime of unemployment benefits although it was three months before he took a job at over $10/hr less than what he was making.
This incessant whining has to stop. You don’t have a job? Damn, I’m sorry. I really am. But then, you need to figure out how to create one for yourself and quit waiting for the government to “do something”. Michael Dell didn’t become a millionaire because he sat around waiting for the government to take care of him.
Now, on to the rest of it: the two year extension puts Obama on the down side of raising taxes while he campaigns for his second term. Oh, yeah, he will cry over tax “cuts” for the “rich”, but it doesn’t eliminate the fact that he is going to want to raise taxes while asking people to vote him into office again. And yes, an extension of unemployment benefit payments will allow people to know that they have at least another year to not really look hard for a job, or take less than they were making before they got laid off. Ambition requires energy, apathy is easy.
Obama was angry last night. He was clearly a man who had been backed into a corner, knowing that he really has little power at this point, and so he had to tack right. And he may think that he can buffalo the conservatives in the House, but he will wind up being the loser as Americans are waking up and demanding a restoration of the Constitution that our ancestors fought, and died for. He may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but he had advisors who are (David Axelrod) and they know that he was bucking public opinion in almost everything he was doing.
Remember, legislation is now in the hands of the Republicans. And if Obama vetoes bills designed to get the economy rolling (by getting government out of the way) how sweet will it be for Obama to be called “the President of NO?”
retire05 wrote the following –
This is, in a word, total b.s. He has no idea whatsoever how unemployment compensation works. First off, from the day you earned your first dollar working in your state, you started paying into the unemployment comp. system. I my case, I have 27 working years under my belt and have NEVER gotten a dime from the system As such, were I to start claiming benefits today, there is a “corpus” of 27 working years of benefits I paid into the system, as did my former and current employer(s).
Second, the unemployment comp. payments do not decrease during times of expansion. What this means is that, throughout the 1990s and from 2002 through 2007 or so, the unemployment comp. systems throughout the US were quite overfunded. Want to know what many states (including my own) then decided to do? yes, you got it, they refunded it to the employers, but did not drop the worker contribution. The problem, of course, came in 2008 when unemployment started to increase and now all of a sudden, those same states that refunded funds to employers are short. And they can’t effectively increase the premiums to employers fast enough to (a) recover what they refunded, or (b) replace the premiums lost as employers go out of business and (c) lay people off, who then claim benefits from a quickly shrinking state unemployment comp fund.
In short, far from current employees paying benefits to those who are not working, rather the states are using funds contributed years before, and using Obama stimulus money. Indeed, if currently employed people were funding the unemployment comp systems, then there would be no need for any bailout by the feds. And don’t try to argue, retiree, that “Obama has raised taxes to pay for those unemployment benefits”; in fact, EVERYONE is paying lower taxes under Obama than they paid under Bush. Why? Because of the Obama stimulus package’s tax cuts, not to mention the coming cuts in Social Security taxes.
By the way — want to know what one of the largest parts of the stimulus package was? Yep . . . shoring up state employment coffers so that even MORE people were not put on the unemployment rolls.
Nope… not true, Billy Bob. There is no money withheld from an employee’s paycheck for either state or federal unemployment taxes. Also confirmed here, and also here. *You* paid in nothing. The employers who hired you had that onus.
Additionally:
So where’s all theses fat coffers you speak of, supposedly paid in by you (*NOT*) that instantly got drained after returning that overage money to the employers? You know, those who paid it in to begin with? In the case of performance management of state unemployment trust funds, Texas employers got a fat $800 check average return in 2007. Wow…
The only exception to this is the 1994 law that Clinton signed in, that allows for employees to request a withholding percentile from the unemployment benefits they receive (from the *employers’* payment into the system) so they aren’t responsible for the income taxes on it all at once.
Therefore your ensuing comment really highlights what is wrong when you and your POTUS attempt to delve outside your economic expertise:
But of course the stimulus was a piece of crap legislation. Despite all the taxpayer money (not employer) they tossed at the stimulus, they still nailed employers for massive increases in unemployment insurance this year. Wow… that helps with creating jobs in a recession, eh? A little counterproductive to making sure “… that even MORE people were not put on the unemployment rolls.”
duh wuh
Florida, at least, was astute enough to see what an idiot move that was.
Point being that adding to the nation’s debt by taxpayers paying for unemployment benefits, combined with nailing employees with such astronomical increases, does more to exacerbate the problem than to cure it.
@MataHarley:
Damn! You beat me to it.
I typed up my reply but you got to the “Send” key first.
Once again, the Mr. ParaLegal Man demonstrates his idiocy.
Of course, if he had ever been responsible for meeting a payroll, he would have known everything you told him.
Hey ParaLegal Man….who is it really that “has no idea whatsoever how unemployment compensation works?”
BTW, to add fuel to Billy Bob’s fire on that “stimulus”… it was a “pay raise” in benefits, at the behest of the taxpayer, and a “$2400 tax cut” by suspending federal tax withholding on the unemployment benefits by that amount to boot.
Hang, no wonder so many want to stay on unemployment instead of getting a job. Nice job, Pelosi/Reid/Obama. Can this trio get any dumber?
One small addition to the above.
There are three states which require minimal employee contributions to their state unemployment compensation funds.
Those states are:
Yes, I caught that on the UI site, but they are the rare and minority exception. I might also point out that none of these states are where Billy Bob says he’s from (went to law school in Chicago), or lives… therefore he did not “pay” anything.
B-Rob,
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in your latest. First you state that current employed workers are not funding the unemployment benefits and then you state that the stimulus funds are really funding the unemployment benefits. Where in the world do you think the stimulus funds are coming from?? Oh I get it — the stimulus funds are not our money it is just some gift coming down from on high. Great reasoning.
I personally know a man who was working at age 74 and got laid off. Yes he has been taking the unemployment benefits and enjoying being paid to retire. He has lots of properties in CA, no debts, and lots of timeshares to while away his time at. The only cost is submitting a few applications now and then. Of course it would be politically incorrect to discriminate right?
Mata, Mata, Mata . . . your ignorance is stunning sometimes, but it is total, at least.
You are correct there is no “withholding” for unemployment comp. And I did not say there was any “withholding”, did I? But trust me, you ARE paying into it! It is part of your wage package and your employer looks are every employee and figures it into their pay. Furthermore, your employer WRITES OFF UNEMPLOYMENT COMP AS A WAGE EXPENSE, just as they write off workers’ compensation expenses, health insurance, etc.
In addition, what you get FROM the unemployment comp fund depends on what you earn which, in turn, generates your unemployment comp premium. In addition, what you get back depends on your employment history (those with longer, more consistent work histories get more).
In my case, I have earned paychecks in three different states but have never drawn from any fund. If I were to start drawing today, then there is a corpus of 15 years paid in benefits in this state that I would, in theory, be drawing from.
In Texas, every employer got back $800, total? That just means that Texas did not refund as much as other states. But here’s the question: do you think that Texas wouldn’t like to have that $300 million back today? Bet they would.
Your post, Mata, seems to imply that the feds were responsible for states raising the unemployment comp premiums. Hopefully you know this is false. Moreover, you can call the stimulus “carp legislation” if you want; but none of you cons ever seem to want to acknowledge the fact that (a) but for the stimulus, there would have been more state and local employees unemployed and drawing unemployment comp benefits, meaning (b) there would be even higher unemployment comp premiums to employers in order to cover those additional claimants, and (c) without the $350 billion or so in stimulus spending and $300 billion in tax cuts, SURELY there would have been less economic activity and, therefore. more unemployment, swelling the problem at (a) and the problem at (b).
In other words, GOPer cons may not have voted for the stimulus package, but they certainly cannot explain how the economy would have been BETTER OFF without it, not to mention how their own districts would have been better off without the Obama money that they admit creates jobs. To quote Arnold
No, Arnold, it does not “match up” because it is b.s.
Aye, I pay into both the unemployment comp and workers’ comp systems for my kid’s nanny. In addition, I have a little familiarity with how it works since I rep. EMPLOYERS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW MATTERS. Ya know . . . fighting unemployment comp claims, for example, when they are terminated for cause. Other than that, though, I know nothing . . . what a maroon . . . .
Hold on to your hats
Democrats could scuttle Obama-GOP tax cut deal
This seemed too easy. I’ll wager something was brewing in the back room. It provided Obama some cover to appear as though he’s a new Obama.
I don’t believe it for a second.
@ParaLegal Man:
Obviously it’s been a long, long time since you’ve had a working relationship with a clue.
First you wrote:
Then you wrote:
So, which is it? Are “you” paying in or is it the employer?
Yep. That’s right…once again you’ve demonstrated that you’re an idiot.
And how much does your employee pay in for unemployment comp?
That’s right…Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I like the way Grover Norquist argued for the deal.
Remember this is NOT the new Congress.
This is the ”Lame Duck” one.
All of those outgoing members are still there in both the House and the Senate.
So, do not think that the next Congress will act like this Lame Duck one.
And to a point made about unemployment.
In CA, if an employer, like my husband, has to send a worker home 4 hours early one day a week or month, that worker can get an unemployment check.
He/she does NOT have to look for other work at all.
And he/she gets not only the regular unemployment check, but a bit extra called the Obama addition.
So, hubby’s workers don’t mind when business is so slow they have to sit home a day a month or so.
Don’t mind a bit.
Hubby is happy to allow attrition to thin his workforce rather than to have to lay anyone off completely, too.
So, it’s a ”win-win.”
Delh –
You missed the entire point of the post, so I will restate it this way:
Each individual employee pays into the system, but it is not like a tax. Your benefits are determined by what you pay in, NOT paid like an entitlement. So Joe Blow pays into the system, but he pays in for himself, not for anyone else.
As to the stimulus funds, those were borrowed from the Chinese, among others. It is part if the reason we ran a $1.3 trillion deficit.
(Aside — I personally believe that ONE of the undiscussed reasons that the stimulus package was passed was to produce more debt and provide a place for foreigners to invest in the US. Remember, the financial markets were in disarray at the time, and mutual funds were seized up. With the death of “cash-like collateralized debt obligations”, many foreign banks, governments and businesses had no place to park cash. The debt we issued to fund the stimulus package created a haven for foreign and domestic investment at a time that the markets needed it. Can you sell that to America? No. So you sell it as “With the stimulus package, we will cut taxes for the middle class, we will extend relief to state and local governments, and we will fund important infrastructure projects.”)
Oh, Billy Bob… it’s that invisible contribution… I see. BWAHAHAHAHA
As to the feds being responsible for state raises in UI? Yes, they are in a fashion. The IRS sends a letter to the state’s payee (employer, not you, Billy Bob) and “suggests” they raise their fed UI taxes.
Guess it doesn’t take new legislation to necessarily raise the federal rates on an employer, does it? Just IRS scrutiny.
In the case of the state UI, lawmakers then do so, or not. However that “suggestion” comes from the feds, in the form of interest and repayment of loan terms. Now I think most of us know what an IRS “suggestion” means for fed taxes, yes?
Not only that, the ARRA interest free loans from the fed FUTA are temporary, and the states need to pay back interest on those “interest free” loans in two years.
Yes, Billy Bob… your ignorance is indeed stunning. And you don’t do a backstroke very well either.
B-rob, you suffer from Joy Behar syndrome. You’re extremely stupid, arrogant, and ignorant and have no clue of how severely you suffer from those maladies.
If you did, you wouldn’t be questioning ANYONE’S intelligence or level of knowledge.
DrJohn –
Let’s get real. Obama won on this! He got his unemployment comp benefits, he got extension of expiring Obama tax cuts from the stimulus play, he got his middle class tax cuts, he got a higher ceiling on the estate tax (which the Congressional Black Caucus has been jazzed up about), and he got accelerated tax write off of equipment investment (which will further spur manufacturing and please the unions). To get all that, he had to give up two years of additional tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires.” Dems won on this deal and it will pass.
My beef? To quote the article you posted:
$900 billion and not any discussion of any spending offsets to keep from increasing the deficit!
Still learning the backstroke, eh Billy Bob? No, with the exception of the three states mentioned by the DOL, the “individual employee” does NOT pay into the system. Your benefits are determined by what the employer pays in, which is based on your salary.
You really are an idiot.
Mata, Mata. Mata . . . breath, girl, breath!
You know how I know the stimulus package worked? Not a single GOPer con ANYWHERE has neglected to go schnorring for stimulus funds AND not a single state ANYWHERE turned down the federal funds.
Got that?
If the program was so friggin rotten, then why participate in the first place?
On your statement regarding the IRS . . . did you even read what you linked to? Obviously now! That is about what employers’ claim as a deduction for unemployment comp insurance, not what their PREMIUM will be! The states set the premium rates, not the employers or the IRS, doofus!
@ParaLegal Man’sfantasy:
Inconvenient reality:
So, in his delusional fantasy land, unemployment compensation taxes are not really taxes and they’re not really paid by the employer.
Why would you think McClatchy’s has any economic credibility, Billy Bob? If they say it, it’s true? Right….
Mata –
You are simply ignorant about how businesses account for labor costs, how payroll processes employee benefits (which, in many cases, includes a line item showing what was paid in employment taxes), how states calculate premiums (based on employee wages, including overtime), and how states award benefits. And though you don’t know it, you are also ignorant about how settlement agreements are drafted in the employment context, and how courts determine lost wages in employment cases which, 99% of the time, involve an accounting for unemployment comp expenses and benefits. Other than that, you are spot on and a genius.
Aye –
Though you are simple, not every explanation can be as simple as you.
Unemployment comp is not a tax TO THE INDIVIDUAL because there is no withholding and no employee responsibility to pay it to the state fund. But it is an indirect form of taxation, aimed at employers based on YOUR INDIVIDUAL EARNINGS. The employer is liable to pay it, but it is part of your mandatory benefit package (along with Social Security, workers’ comp, and any other state or local obligations), and part of your sunk labor cost for employing a person.
It is not an entitlement, either, because (a) states can chose not to award you the benefits if you leave work under particular circumstances, and (b) the amount paid is based on earnings and (c) based on your compliance with other aspects of the unemployment comp program.
Now why don’t you go back to discussing something you know something about . . . because the American employment laws certainly is not in that category.
Funny, I wonder why Flopping Aces declined to show Obama’s announcement of the agreement, going instead with various talking heads’ analysis of what they thought about his speech. Anyway, here it is.
Mata –
Please show me what is inaccurate about McClatchy’s reporting. Or is it that “If it is not on Faux News, then it must be a lie”?
What motivates you, B-Rob?
You rage and insult, shade and obfuscate, make your case like a shyster lawyer rather than an honest debater, and what’s it all about? Looks like it must be your man-crush on Obama.
Your boyfriend and his cronies have been bad. They have failed. All your apologetics can’t chage what they’ve done or what it’s costing them.
@ B-Rob…You have one employee? I reckon that makes You an *Expert* ???
I now Directly Employ 58 in Ranching and hired a Mining Engineer and 60 Miners. I’ll get back to you on getting it *figgered out*. PSST… I have already so get off your grand soapbox.
First you said:
Now you say:
Which is exactly what Mata and I have been saying all along:
Argue with yourself much?
I wonder . . . Obama got everything that he could have possibly wanted in this deal. The Congressional Black Caucus gets their estate tax exemption increased; unions get accelerated write off on investment, which will spur construction and manufacturing purchases; he got his extension of unemployment compensation for another year; he gets extension of the Obama stimulus tax cuts; and he gets a reduction of the regressive payroll taxes.
To get all that, he had to give the GOPer cons two years of bush tax cuts over $250,000.
This makes me wonder: exactly how “opposed” was he to extending the “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires”?
I think you cons just got punked!
B-Rob–
See: Aesop’s Fables; The Fox and the Grapes.
my boy Sherman –
What motivates me is to shine a light on the lunatic, knee-jerk, unthinking intellectual bankruptcy that is American conservative “thought” in the United States today, as well evidenced by this site and the “learned” commentary of its posters. I have very little rage. In fact, I find you cons to be rather amusing. Reading the posts here is not unlike watching a bunch of kindergarteners describe how an internal combustion engine works: lost of opinions, some expressed with exasperation that the other listeners “don’t get it,” but all based on fundamental ignorance of the very thing you are commenting on.
Aye –
Yes, I am an expert in unemployment comp because I am the person who airlines, banks, public employers, etc. hire to negotiate settlement agreements, represent them in unemployment comp hearings, etc. The fact that you claim to employ 58 or 60 people doesn’t mean you know what the hell you are talking about where the law in concerned . . . a fact that becomes more obvious each time you post.
I will say it again — unemployment compensation is a part of an employee’s wage package. The employee’s labor generates it, the employee earns it, he pays into it, and it is paid in on his behalf based on the wages earned. You pay into it both directly and indirectly. Further, if you were to ever find yourself in an employment lawsuit, what you received, what you paid in and whether the money gets offset against any damages would be a matter of great discussion and interest by the court. If you do not grasp these concepts, that leads me to believe that, to the extent you manage 58 people (or is it 118?), you cannot be very good at it. Alas, that is one of the tragedies of American business: stupid management teams . . . they abound.
Oh, goody!
Obama has called a news conference.
He’s coming back out to explain this again.
All his base are NOT belong to him.
LOL
my boy Sherman –
Nope, the proper fable is Br’er Rabbit and the Briar Patch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br'er_Rabbit
Nan G. –
Methinks that Obama is going to have a scotch and a cigar and a smile on his face this evening . . . the Dems are not nearly as upset with this as they are letting on. Once the GOPers realize they got punked, though, I expect that THEY will be the ones pissed off.
Over and over again you’ve continued trying to argue a point and then argue the counter point…rather unsuccessfully I might add.
The whole time we, The Great UnwashedTM have been running circles around you.
You’ve been pinned down on the factual fallacies of your arguments since your first post on this thread.
Right…. That may (or may not) have been true once upon a time but, now that your not so stellar legal career seems to have run face first into a proverbial bridge abutment, we both know that’s no longer accurate now don’t we?
Which is how you got your shot at that not so stellar legal career right?
Of course, there are also smart management teams who recognize dead wood and choose to purge it rather than continuing to allow it to suckle right?
Run along now…it’s almost time for your afternoon shift.
A tax lawyesr take on the Obama tax cut deal.
A quote:
Employers posted a sharp increase in job openings in October, raising hopes that hiring could pick up in the coming months.
Businesses and government advertised nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of October the Labor Department said Tuesday.
…….
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Job-openings-rise-sharply-to-apf-4105185263.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee, 3.4 MILLION jobs were offered.
Only 39,000 were hired.
Looks like a lot of people prefer to stay home for 99 weeks or there abouts.
Official unemployment is 9.8%, unofficial is ~16%.
Maybe we need more illegals.
We have a whole lot of people here who are not willing to do these jobs….apparently.
Hmmmmm:
Plus:
Equals….not looking rosy for The One
Yeah, Nan G., that must be right! People would rather have $250 per week and no benefits than earn $500 per week with benefits.
Nan, who are these people you know who would rather collect 30 cents on the dollar compared to what they used to earn and fall behind on their mortgage, rather than earn a full days wage? Who are they, Nan? Seems to me that unemployment comp is another area where economists draw certain conclusions but common sense and peoples’ lives actually prove the opposite.
Curt –
I am certain that you WISH there would be real anger, etc., about Obama “caving” to the GOPers to get unemployment comp extended a year, get the CBC its desired estate tax extension, get his Obama stimulus tax cuts extended, get the middle class tax cuts extended, etc. But when all is said and done, he got a lot and did not, imho (given the GOP solid opposition and some Dems with them) give up anything that they probably would not have gotten anyway. So when you get what you want and only give up what you would have lost anyway, it is not a bad deal.
B-Rob–
The White House is blaming Democrats in Congress. Congressional Democrats are blaming the White House.
So according to you, the Dems are concealing the massive success of their secret plan by intentionally looking like a disorganized rabble of petty, backbiting fools in public. It’s all just an act.
That sure is some elaborate, devious theater they have going on.
Or, maybe they’re just as scared as they look.
So B-Rob, from what Aye tells us, I gather that you have had some reverses in life. I surmise that you probably come here and sneer so as to feed your ego and live in the past. Good thing for you that you’re not really here to defend the ongoing expansion of the size and reach of government, because that has become an impossible job. Obama’s former cheerleaders see this. That’s why they’re dropping off the tree like overripe fruit. Or, is that part of the master plan as well?
I’d say for a supposed paralegal B-rob sure has a lot of free time.
So the attempted spin by B-Rob is that Democrats overcame the solid opposition – of a distinct minority – and won a victory. Impressive reasoning, B.
As with other recent Democrat legislative defeats, this one was actually caused by the loss of the votes of Democrats in Congress, and that happened because the real oppostion is not the outnumbered Republicans in Congress, it’s the American people. Many Democrats fear the wrath of their constituents. The Republicans are at most reminders, surrogates and brokers for that wrath.
That’s what held up the Healthcare bill, remember? Couldn’t get enough Democrats to vote for it.
@ Wm T Sherman, #60:
That minority has turned the monkey-wrenching of the gears of effective government into Standard Operating Procedure in the U.S. Senate. That was exactly what they threatened here.
Had Obama not compromised, all of middle America would have seen tax increases in January, and millions of struggling American families would have suddenly lost their only income even before that.
The Senate has always had ways for the minority to slow things down, Greg. That was the conscious design of the Founding Fathers. There is nothing new or innovative in that regard.
Obama and the top (Left-wing) Democrats could not get what they wanted because they did not have enough votes from their own party, which still holds a large majority. That is reality.
I’m really surprised that I know so many slacker types.
And more surprised that r-bob claims not to.
They are all up and down the beach here……usually they scrape together a 1st and last then live rent-free for as long as possible.
I love their big plans: to go down to a Wal Mart and (they don’t call it ”beg’) ”bum” cigarettes off people.
@Greg:
Hey Greg…I know you’ve had a rough couple of days watching your “tax the rich” dream scheme get dashed on the rocks but I have a couple of questions for you.
1) The Dims have, for the last two years, had complete control of the legislative branch of our gov’t with a filibuster proof super majority for a majority of that time. Why, oh why, didn’t they pass their tax ‘em plans when they had the votes to do so without opposition?
2) The Dims have the ability right now, through reconciliation, to get whatever tax plan they wish to pass through the Senate with only 51 votes. Why did they choose to compromise instead?
The number of people here who I would normally consider well informed but are now showing themselves to be woefully ignorant is really depressing.
Get some real knowledge about what the UE extension really is/does folks.
Retire 05 and Big Boo. I’m looking at you both.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/309124.php
Anyone who claims that people are refusing to take work because they are getting UE is either a liar, an idiot, or friends with a criminal and should turn that person they are speaking of in.
I work with Unemployed people every day and there is not a single one of them that wouldn’t knock you down to get to a job. They apply to every job that is listed and they would gladly take any job offer they get.
How about you loud mouths talking about jobs that people wont take posting up those jobs! I’d love to see these jobs.
Around here the only job listing that goes unfilled is the one where they are only farming resumes ‘in case’ they get an opening. or so they can try to steal peoples identity.
So, who watched Obama today?
He’s tried to argue that he took this short term deal, which will end up being a bad long term for Republicans, because of the “tax cuts on the rich.”
What he doesn’t seem to get is that he’ll be arguing about the “Bush tax cuts” as a whole in two years, when he’s running for re-election, having already lost that debate in 2010.
He’s came across as hectoring, defensive, and not well acquainted with the facts or the policy.
Next he angrily lectured the Left for their negative reaction to ObamaCare because it lacked a public option.
It was, all in all, pretty bad.
Obama even compared Republicans to terrorists holding the American people “hostage”!
Tax policy does not equal terrorism, especially in an age of actual, lethal terrorism.
Will 2010 go down as the year of the death of “Hope and Change.”
Update: Real Clear Politics has video of Obama calling Republicans “hostage takers.” It’s a remarkably unpresidential line.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/07/obama_calls_the_gop_hostage_takers_over_tax_cut_compromise.html
A bloc of Senate Democrats could decide not to support a White House-brokered deal on tax cuts and unemployment benefits, thereby putting the plan in danger, according to the second-ranking Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132313-sen-durbin-dems-could-walk-on-tax-cut-deal
Durbin said during an interview on NPR. “If the Republicans overreach — if they start including some of their pet projects into this compromise when it comes to the tax code, you could find a walkout on the Democratic side.
If, if, if…..
Today’s Press Conference, in its entirety.
Tsgt Ciz, I posted the same link to Gabriel Malor’s article at Ace a few minutes before you did. A gross misunderstanding of the meaning of the unemployment benefits extension is afoot.
The problem is that the media have widely misreported it.
Our expert trolls here have not mentioned the misconception – I should think they would have mentioned it, condescendingly of course, if they had known.
Instead, we get our clarification from a writer at a conservative blog.
@Tsgt Ciz:
The population in my area, not including the rural folks is 248,712. We have 18 help wanted ads in the paper today.
Wm T Sherman
I noticed your link just after I posted mine. Good to see a fellow Moron here.
Missy,
Thanks. I think that shows what I’m talking about. If unemployment there is like it is here (14% reported closer to 18% real) then you have a lot more people who want jobs than th ere are jobs to be had. Even if it were the national average (9.8% reported, who know what real) then you would have 24,871 people trying to get those 18 jobs. And more, if those jobs are like those listed here, then 40% would be unskilled minimum wage, and the others would be professionals with a masters degree and 10yrs experience. Don’t bother applying for the unskilled minimum wage job if you actually have any skills. They won’t bother hiring you because they know you will never stop looking for a new job that you can live on, and the hiring boss is worried the job you might go after first is his job.
Fellow conservatives, you are blowing it big time by scapegoat-ing the unemployed. This echoes the rise of conservatives to power under the “Contract with America” followed by their complete vilification when the government was shut down and the Democrats pointed out all the collateral damage from a puritan policy over people approach. Whether it was deserved or not, the Conservatives were painted as completely heartless and the branding remains to today. If you want to really make it stick, keep bitching about someone’s friend or family member collecting a stipend while they desperately look for work. There are more than 12 Million Americans out of work entirely and who knows more Americans who either need a second or a new job. Put more than 12 Million Americans on the streets and you will crash the economy and risk our entire society. Everyone knows several someone’s who are out of work and have been for a long time. They see the daily suffering and worry that they are going through and know the devastation that will follow if they all suddenly have nothing to keep the household together.
Now I will completely agree that the lion share of the problems we have were caused by liberals and their constant mucking with the economy. There are a large number of supposed conservative Republicans I can toss in the blame mix too. And I will preach loud and long about how Liberal’s have made it nearly impossible to start and succeed in business today, or how they have made it so expensive to hire anyone. But you don’t ignore the people in the water just because the Capitan of the Titanic was an idiot and the builder cut corners, especially not if the Titanic sank in your drinking water and all those bodies are going to poison it.
I don’t think the extensions of unemployment are desirable. I don’t know anyone who wants an extension of the unemployment. I have proposed that every business that hires a unemployed worker should be credited against their unemployment insurance payment with whatever the unemployed workers would have received for up to 1 year. If the cost of UE Ins is so high it’s stopping hiring, and workers are clinging to their UE because they can’t get wages sufficient to improve their lot, then this should address both issues.
Why don’t you show me the specifics of how McClatchy’s got that number, Billy Bob. But wait… I remember. You do not have a curious mind, and just blindly swallow the party line.
@B-Rob: really, Billy Bob? How many businesses have you run, or how many have you done their accounting payroll for?
From what I can see, you’ve always been a drifting employee.
As somoeone who worked two jobs for over thirty years before becoming unemployed, I concur 100% with Tsgt Ciz. Mine is hardly the resume of someone who doesn’t want to work. Personally I applied for over 100 jobs without a single callback. A lot of those were jobs at Home Depot and the like so it wasn’t like not wanting to work for anything less than six figures. In my state you have to apply for a minimum of three jobs every week or lose the benefits. Make no mistake, there are plenty of freeloaders out there who couldn’t find work even if the unemployment rate was 1%, but they are in the minority. It took awhile to get out of the UE cycle and it wasn’t easy, it just took some investing and time.
Being somewhat ignorant about how UE compensation works, I know that employers pay UE insurance but I assume the rest of the funds come from the government who in turn get their money from people when they pay taxes. If you’ve worked and paid taxes you’ve paid for someone’s UE just not your own. Kind of like SS where you work and pay someone else’s SS but not your own. Is that a fair assumption to make or am I comparing apples and oranges?
Before going after people who’ve worked all their lives but who have come upon hard times, I think we first need to cut off benefits to those who haven’t paid into the system, i.e. illegal immigrants, freeloaders who are chronically unemployed, and those who have never worked even though they’ve lived here all their lives. Welfare folks (minus disabled people) should be subjected to drug tests before collecting their $$ and must prove they are trying to get off the system through education, job training, or by proving they are looking for work. For those of us who have collected UE, perhaps something should be enacted whereby if you collect say, $30,000 in UE compensation, when it comes time to collect SS, you either have to wait a couple of years before collecting full benefits or take a reduced amount until you reach the $30,000 figure. I realize it’s two different pots of money, but it’s a way to curb spending and make people more responsible. Just some thoughts.
Now, for something all on it’s own:
Billy Bob, you amoeba, you are aware that the FUTA taxes from an employer are collected by… ta daaaaa… the IRS? Shall with start with the elementary stuff first?
I did not say it was what the “premium” would be. What I was pointing out was that the IRS sent letters to an employer contesting their declared amount. Normally when the IRS contests your filing figures, they state a “you owe this much more” amount, or they audit. And you contest.
Still with me, slow, single celled one?
Please note the title of the notice. I’ll replay it for you…
Are they saying “oops, you’re wrong.. you owe us this much MORE?” Nope. What they are saying is that what the employer reported doesn’t match with the state. Don’t give us your records and/or dispute us, and we’ll bill you, plus charge you interest.”
Exact wording:
Gee… something about this smacks of me guilty until proven innocent, in the eyes of the IRS.
Is this a state mandate rise? No. Is it an increase in your personal employer UI fed taxes, at the point of an IRS gun, unless you prove your innocence?
Nope. Yep (Freudian moment… LOL) Whether it’s an across the board, or directly leveled tax increase, it comes from the IRS feds. Spend money fighting it, or pay up. But either way, it’s an increase in that employers’ UI taxes.You know, as a lawyer (supposedly of your purported and presented “on the side of the working man” ideology), you’d think that when the govt says “you’re guilty, pay me”… that you’d be on the side of the working man.
But noooooooo…. hypocrite.
Gee.. you’ve spent the money via enacted law. If I don’t take the money I’m obligated to pay for, who will?
This is like refusing a turkey your bold survivor-type butt (yes , that *is* sarcasm) shot in the wild because I oppose killing turkeys. The turkey’s already dead… why would I refuse? Do I utilize the meat for a feast, even tho I opposed your hunt? (and no, I’m not anti-hunter… it’s just an analogy, folks… LOL) Or do I let another eat the meat instead? After all, the damn turkey’s already dead, thanks to you… and my family is hungry.
First let me say, if you want to know why you live in the moderation filter, Billy Bob, it’s because you spam the site with horse manure, and statements that don’t include a lick of back up in documentation (guess you lost the paralegal who functioned as your second brain cell?).
Twenty comments today alone. What’s the matter? Slow time in the legal world? Got a new gig which gives you lots of free time?
It’s just too bad you still never say anything and merely attempt to operate as an Obama “Russian cyber attack machine on WikiLeaks”, instead shaving down to FA as your target. That’s almost laughable in itself… that your ambitions and threshhold of accomplishment lies with whether you can spam FA enough daily.
But we thank your for the left hand compliment.
But this last one is just too good to pass up.
So why don’t you tell me about the UI taxes, and employer lawsuits, that is supposed to be your magic “I’m the genius” label you demand – sans evidence? To just say that I couldn’t possibly know, and yet not cite court cases (as I do for you, you lazy quasi-attorney SOB), just tells me that your career must be in free fall for lack of discipline.
A couple of days? Greg’s been on the tail of “the wealthy” since his arrival here back in Feb 2010, Aye. It seems to be his obsession.
Now, since I haven’t actually addressed the subject of the thread here… the GOP compromising on the 100% tax quota staying the same (it is not a tax cut… all budget reconciliation deficit measures are “temporary” for 10 years because of the Byrd Rule… Senate debate rules)… let me comment on that. Take it where you will.
Billy Bob is dreaming if he thinks this is an “Obama punked you” moment. On the other hand, I see no GOP victory either. The goal should have been, at max, 100% tax status unchanged, and extension of unemployment bennies MAX to April 2011 tax deadline.. Period. You are either not for spending, or you are.
If you agree to the tax cuts from 2001 remaining status quo for two more years, and then compromise on adding to the FUTA debt… which is likely to be recup’ed from businesses via state increases.. you are not part of the solution. You are only an enabler of the current problem.
Piss poor performance, GOP. What they gain is the temporary extension of current tax levels, and traded it off for a hidden “stimulus” with both extended bennies and other tax increases.
As for Obama, he didn’t win either. Neither did the Democrats. They “caved” according to their base and O’faithful, because he did not punish “the wealthy”… a staple phrase in the Obama vocabulary, along with “let me be clear.
Nor did Obama or the Dems gain the opportunity to paint the GOP as “Ebenezer Scrooge” for cutting off the spending INRE FUTA/extended UI benefits prior to Christmas… ala a tax “pink slip”. Naturally, that was never their goal, but that wouldn’t stop the Dems saying that for political gain, if they didn’t agree to the Dem demand for increased spending.
Lastly, Obama loses as he now promotes the “Bush tax cuts” he agreed to extend as a “stimulus” bill. Since he is an obvious supporter of “stimulus”, this makes his opposition to the Bush tax policies nothing short of political BS.
What we know is that neither party won anything of consequence. But the American taxpayer and economy lost it all.
Count me way unimpressed….. /spit.
Obama, the “Kenyan socialist,” just made $12 billion on the investment in Citigroup. Seems to me that if that is what Kenyan socialism gets us, we probably need more of it.
Mata –
Nah, he punked you guys . . . and some of you are starting to acknowledge that . . . .
Question: why oppose a $900 billion bill because only a third of it (the unemployment benefits part) is not offset? Why no worry about offsetting the tax cuts with spending cuts? Ah . . . I get it . . . if we go down that road, cons will FINALLY have to admit that tax cuts have to be set off with spending cuts, otherwise deficits grow . . . as they did with Reagan and Bush II.
And no, Mata, Obama is not calling the Bush tax cuts “the stimulus” part of the deal. Indeed, that makes no sense at all, since putting those cuts in puts us back to the 2007 recessionary, pre-Obama stimulus plan status quo, doesn’t it? And was the economy “stimulated” when the Second Bush Recession started in December 2007? No. Rather, the stimulus parts are the investment tax credit part, the extension of the Obama stimulus plan tax cuts, the new payroll tax cuts, and the unemployment benefits extension . . . you know, the Dem ideas . . . .
Mata –
I am not an accountant. So, no, I have never actually “done” a payroll. What I do is a bit higher end than that, such as working with management and negotiating with the unions to draft the actual contracts that set the actual wage rates and benefits packages that go into the payroll. I work with the treasurers and HR directors to make sure they can afford to pay what they are contracting to pay. And guess what works into that calculation? Yep, the cost of mandatory benefit programs: unemployment comp, workers comp, Social Security, retirement programs for public sector employers, etc.
But my point remains, of course — by any rational definition, employees EARN unemployment comp and it is allocated to them based on the hours they work and the wages they earn. Employers pay it into the unemployment comp system for the employees, but they earn it and become “entitled to it” when/if they file a claim for benefits. THAT is what makes it different from any other entitlement, because you pay in under your name, you draw benefits based on your earnings, and you don’t get the benefit at all if the employer can prove you were fired for cause.
A large part of the cons “outrage” over the system is based on unadulterated ignorance as to how the system works and the stress the states are under. (Aside: stress relieved, somewhat, by the Obama stimulus package that you cons opposed . . . fancy that . . . .) Like Jim DeMint calling for unemployment comp benefits to be “a loan”. A loan to whom? The states who cannot afford to pay it? Or are you going to lend the employees the benefits they already earned by paying into the system for years? W.t.h. are you cons talking about?
The rest of what you referred to . . . all I can say is “Huh?”
Larry O’Donnell explains why libs and GOPer cons would both be insane to oppose the tax deal.
Billy Bob, if you will remember, I am already on record calling this a triple loser.
The GOP leadership caved, and did not honor the “thou shalt not spend” commandment sent via midterm elections.
Obama lost with his base when he caved on the “tax cuts for wealthiest Americans”…. when in fact, it’s not a tax cut, but continuing the status quo. Again, this comes down to the idiocy of someone saying they are losing money on a rental house because they aren’t charging $500 more than they do.
Obama also lost the ability to paint the GOP as Scrooge, but they did try to set up the sequel a year from now… and the GOP stepped handily into that trap. A small win at best.
Lastly, the media talking points… generally selling what WH officials whisper in their ears… are labeling this a “stimulus”… Firedoglake to the San Jose Mercury News and the NYTs, who calls it the “second stimulus”. You, yourself, are now calling tax credits and tax cuts “stimulus”.
So I guess, according to your demented thought, tax cuts and credits are only a “stimulus” when they are proposed by “duh one” and his Dim cronies, with a special category that excludes the 2001 tax cuts? Laughable. Quite the attempt at lib/prog doublespeak.
And BTW, I have asked both you and Greg about this $900 billion number. As CNN’s Money points out, there are no official numbers for the proposal and all it’s components. However the number they attribute… not offset by anticipated revenues and consumer behavior… of those evil “wealthiest” Americans is $75 billion. $250 billion is the amount of revenue the government says it will lose if it doesn’t *raise taxes* on those making $250K and lower… this from earlier Treasury numbers.
A bit disingenuous to heap all the BS talking points blame about “the wealthy” INRE keeping the tax structure status quo, when the bulk of the money they’d be attempting to abscond actually comes from Joe Blow America, don’t you think?
And considering there is no official government estimate, and that it would be unlikely to address it’s counter effect on revenues, it’s probably as valid a number as any.
This means the GOP fought to keep $383 billion in the pockets of the bread winners in all financial categories, and the Dims would allow that to happen if they could pile on (using your $900 bil figure) $517 bil more of “stimulus”… $56 bil of that being flushed down the drain as UI benefits which will come back to haunt the individual employers in states who borrow from FUTA.
As I said, count me unimpressed. Obama and the Dims aren’t winners when they now label their cuts as “stimulus”. Obama’s credibility INRE his long touted “no tax cuts for the wealthy” is shot. And the GOP sure isn’t a winner.
The biggest losers are, of course, we the taxpayers. Therefore, welcome to the ranks of “the punked”, Billy Bob. When we are screwed by the elected ones, we are all screwed…. despite chasms between our political beliefs.
Mata. Braindead-rob is happy to be screwed when the progressives are the ones doing it. He only gets angry when the Republicans do it.
Billy Bob, now that was a more rational comment INRE UI benefits. Of course the benefit is earned and has caveats. But they do not “pay into the system”, as you earlier misstated…. and continue to misstate even in your latest comment. The employer does.
Also for the record, I don’t agree with DeMint’s “loan” proposal INRE UI extensions. But I will tell you that the employers have not paid into the system to support 99 weeks of UI employee benefits, nor have the employees “earned” that much in benefits with the limited employer contribution. So who’s paying for people to collect UI checks, instead of taking a job where they consider themselves “underemployed”? We, the taxpayers, of course.
Lastly, the ARRA “stimulus” was kicking the can down the road for the states and their individual overspending of budgets. As I have repeatedly said, if you have a business where you are not making enough revenue to pay your employees, me stepping in to pay your employees for you does not cure the problem. Does it relieve “your stress”? Of course it does. But one dumb a$$ move if I did that….
Hmmm, there is a Santa:
More:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/12/07/secret-gop-plan-push-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-and-smash-unions/
Pingback: So A Democrat Leader Mutters: “F*** The President” & It’s Big News? The Big News Is That Republicans Agreed To This Bad Deal
Mata –
You wrote
A BIG qualifier here Mata: you are wrong if you are implying that I said anything like “tax cuts pay for themselves.” Because we know, as a matter of economics and common sense, that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. If they did, every states would cut its tax rates when they got into a recession and Reagan and Bush II would not have run deficits: the tax cut revenues would have drowned out the spending!
The way tax cuts CAN BE stimulative, in a short term, back door way, is if tax cuts are funded through borrowing from people who have dollars; then you spend that money. You double the short term economic impact by (a) giving money back to the wage earning class, which will spend it and (b) borrowing and spending borrowed funds on federal goods (tanks, gasoline, computers, desks, etc.) or services (wages, contracted services, etc.).
It is a short term solution, though, that leads to long term problems. Hence the Reagan debt and the Bush II debt followed the Reagan and Bush III tax cuts, the same way the Obama tax cuts from his stimulus and this new round of tax cuts that will be added to the long term Obama debt pile.
Got that? The two year, $800 billion tax deal WILL ADD TO THE DEFICIT!
Mata, I have said one thing over and over and over again: tax cuts should be offset with spending cuts because there is no free lunch, there is no Magic Tax Cut Fairy who will drown us in dollars if only we cut taxes. It is the cons here and elsewhere who, for ideological reasons, refuse to acknowledge the obvious: if you do not offset tax cuts with dollar for dollar spending cuts, you drive up the deficit and the long term debt.
Billy Bob, you have such a lib/prog demented thought on tax cuts (of which this is not a tax cut, but taxes staying status quo in a recession, as they should…). This idea that not stealing cash from the taxpayer needs to “pay for itself” comes down to one thing only… stop the damn spending.
i.e., I think my income revenue stream should really be $30K higher than it is, but the market doesn’t show that’s possible. Am I losing revenue because of my illusions? Nope. It is what it is. . Now if I add to my spending, pretending my income revenue is what I want to believe, and not what it is, am I “paying for my income cut” (which was never real to begin with)? No… I’m being a fiscal fool. I’m spending on what I think my income should be, and not based on what it is.
It’s a very simple economic lesson… you don’t spend more than you bring in the front door. And you don’t count money you wish you were bringing in. I know this may be beyond you, but give it the ol’ Chicago college try, eh?
Therefore the “add to the deficit” figures you all bandy about are based on nothing more than wishful thinking for a higher revenue stream than the nation can bear in a recession. You can not, and should not, count on cash that can not, and will not, be manifested by we turnips, the taxpayer.
The answer is simple… stop the damn spending. And start the cutting process… no, not all at once. But implementing changes incrementally. i.e., when your car has motor problems, troubleshoot part by part, and don’t buy a new engine.
Since last night Obama has had a change of heart.
This compromise was not really a compromise…..just a jumping off point!
That’s right.
He is NOW open to allowing Dems to add their choice cuts of pork into the mix.
Only last night he was against making changes!
And how did he inform the public of this?
By an interview on NPR.
.
.
.
Now there is a big chance that those Republicans who agreed to the compromise will NOT be open to all of the new pork Dems will want to lard up this bill with.
So, there is a bigger chance that we will pass the Dec 15th deadline without a signed bill.
Pingback: So A Democrat Leader Mutters: “F*** The President”; It’s Big News? The Big News Is That Republicans Agreed To This Bad Deal « CWN – Conservative Watch News