Now, let me get this straight about tax cuts…
Good grief. With all the hand-wringing in D.C. over tax cuts, it’s getting so it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard.
It doesn’t help that much of what’s passing for “debate” back east is so inherently self-contradictory as to be laughable. But let’s try.
We have Republicans raising hue and cry about deficit control. “We can’t spend money on anything when we’re running such a high deficit!” Uh, guys? Remember, it was you who voted for these deficits back when Bush was President and you authorized these tax cuts (oh, and two occupations) in the first place.
We have polls showing overwhelming nationwide support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You’d think the Republicans would be smart enough to smell a loser issue, and Democrats smart enough to smell a winner, when the polls were so clear.
And yet...
We have Senate and House Democrats each arguing that the other chamber should go first in shining the spotlight on Republican demands for tax cuts for the rich, while Republicans clamor to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the rich, arguing against the very "sunset" provisions they themselves voted for and that President Bush signed into law.
They also conveniently neglect to mention that extending any of the Bush tax cuts will have dire consequences for the deficit they’re supposedly so concerned about.
They say they want to stimulate the economy by giving giant bucketfuls of money to the rich so the rich can theoretically use it to create jobs. They continue to believe that "trickle-down” economics works, even after it's been repeatedly discredited during the thirty or so years since Reagan popularized the idea.
And although you’d think that at least the issue of tax cuts for the bottom 98% of Americans would be a non-controversial issue for all concerned, nevertheless, Democrats have to form some committees to discuss the phrase “Obama tax cuts” — that is, whether attaching the President's name to this is a good idea, when the President is the only prominent Democrat who has been out there past couple of weeks trying to put Democrats on stronger footing going into the election.
Sheesh!
So let me get this straight.
Republicans are arguing that a very tiny fraction of Americans should get to divvy up a very large mountain of money that they don't even need, money which the U.S. of A will have to borrow in order to give them, ostensibly so they can create jobs by spending it, when they're already not spending the mountains of cash they currently have. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Democrats, faced with overwhelming public support for letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire as scheduled AND passing the Obama tax cuts for everyone else, are too chicken to do anything unless somebody else goes first.
Have I got that right?
Thought so.
Hey congressional Democrats: This isn’t rocket science.
Let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule. Then pass the Obama tax cuts for the other 98% of us who actually do need the money and are far more likely to stimulate the economy by spending it. Like, right away.
It doesn’t help that much of what’s passing for “debate” back east is so inherently self-contradictory as to be laughable. But let’s try.
We have Republicans raising hue and cry about deficit control. “We can’t spend money on anything when we’re running such a high deficit!” Uh, guys? Remember, it was you who voted for these deficits back when Bush was President and you authorized these tax cuts (oh, and two occupations) in the first place.
We have polls showing overwhelming nationwide support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You’d think the Republicans would be smart enough to smell a loser issue, and Democrats smart enough to smell a winner, when the polls were so clear.
And yet...
We have Senate and House Democrats each arguing that the other chamber should go first in shining the spotlight on Republican demands for tax cuts for the rich, while Republicans clamor to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the rich, arguing against the very "sunset" provisions they themselves voted for and that President Bush signed into law.
They also conveniently neglect to mention that extending any of the Bush tax cuts will have dire consequences for the deficit they’re supposedly so concerned about.
They say they want to stimulate the economy by giving giant bucketfuls of money to the rich so the rich can theoretically use it to create jobs. They continue to believe that "trickle-down” economics works, even after it's been repeatedly discredited during the thirty or so years since Reagan popularized the idea.
And although you’d think that at least the issue of tax cuts for the bottom 98% of Americans would be a non-controversial issue for all concerned, nevertheless, Democrats have to form some committees to discuss the phrase “Obama tax cuts” — that is, whether attaching the President's name to this is a good idea, when the President is the only prominent Democrat who has been out there past couple of weeks trying to put Democrats on stronger footing going into the election.
Sheesh!
So let me get this straight.
Republicans are arguing that a very tiny fraction of Americans should get to divvy up a very large mountain of money that they don't even need, money which the U.S. of A will have to borrow in order to give them, ostensibly so they can create jobs by spending it, when they're already not spending the mountains of cash they currently have. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Democrats, faced with overwhelming public support for letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire as scheduled AND passing the Obama tax cuts for everyone else, are too chicken to do anything unless somebody else goes first.
Have I got that right?
Thought so.
Hey congressional Democrats: This isn’t rocket science.
Let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule. Then pass the Obama tax cuts for the other 98% of us who actually do need the money and are far more likely to stimulate the economy by spending it. Like, right away.
# Posted by Jason Black : 1:01 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment