02 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe had to. The Republicans were threatening to cut off unemployment benefits.
One of the main problems is that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts (an amazingly dumb decision), which has aggravated the deficit problem, hurting producer and consumer confidence.
02 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHe should have let them, and Obama could have scored easy political points by painting the GOP as heartless. Maybe the GOP wouldn't even have had the guts to try it.
He had to. The Republicans were threatening to cut off unemployment benefits.
Alternatively, he could have abolished the Bush tax cuts while Obama still had the supermajority, and he could have easily passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits prior to losing the supermajority.
03 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe didn't need the supermajority. The Bush tax cuts didn't have to be repealed. They expired. Congress extended them, and Obama signed the bill.
He should have let them, and Obama could have scored easy political points by painting the GOP as heartless. Maybe the GOP wouldn't even have had the guts to try it.
Alternatively, he could have abolished the Bush tax cuts while Obama still had the supermajority, and he could have easily passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits prior to losing the supermajority.
The political problem he faced was that he wanted to just let the top two marginal rates expire, and let the rest of the Bush tax cuts continue, which would have meant admiting that most of the Bush tax cuts went to lower income people.
Apparently, that was a bitter pill to swallow.
03 Sep 11
Originally posted by normbenignMan do you fail at logic.
He didn't need the supermajority. The Bush tax cuts didn't have to be repealed. They expired. Congress extended them, and Obama signed the bill.
The political problem he faced was that he wanted to just let the top two marginal rates expire, and let the rest of the Bush tax cuts continue, which would have meant admiting that most of the Bush tax cuts went to lower income people.
Apparently, that was a bitter pill to swallow.
Only wanting the tax cuts to expire for the top income bracket does NOT de facto mean "most" of the tax cuts went to the lower income brackets.
In fact, that is simply NOT TRUE. The tax cuts as a percent were fairly even across the board; however, due to the enormity of the income inequality in the United States, in terms of dollars most of the tax cuts came from upper incomes.
03 Sep 11
Originally posted by normbenignNo, Obama's problem is that his inept economic advisors scared him into thinking that raising taxes in 2009 would have hurt the recovery after the crisis. Of course, not raising taxes in 2009 hurt the recovery by allowing the deficit to increase too much.
He didn't need the supermajority. The Bush tax cuts didn't have to be repealed. They expired. Congress extended them, and Obama signed the bill.
The political problem he faced was that he wanted to just let the top two marginal rates expire, and let the rest of the Bush tax cuts continue, which would have meant admiting that most of the Bush tax cuts went to lower income people.
Apparently, that was a bitter pill to swallow.
03 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf Obama had doubled down on cutting the tax cuts and stuck it to the Republicans, how do you think the votes on 1) DADT repeal and 2) START ratification would have looked?
One of the main problems is that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts (an amazingly dumb decision), which has aggravated the deficit problem, hurting producer and consumer confidence.
My guess is, a whole lot different.