Well, isn’t it up to Republicans to explain once and for all: if the Bush tax cuts are such a great idea, then why didn’t he make them permanent?
If they are such a great idea now, then why isn’t it doing for the economy what voodoo economists say it’s supposed to do?

I am starting to think the Bush tax cuts will be extended (or rather the Obama tax increase will be delayed). Hopefully delayed until Obama is not in office.

young4eyes, I know it does not seem to matter to you collecting unemployment, but trust me it is better for the economy to lower taxes during a recession. It is also not a good idea to incur lots of debt.

In other news…

Dems come back from a historic 10 point deficit in Gallup polls last week to tie this week in generic ballot.

Also, “The president’s three-day job approval rating rose to 47% for Aug. 29-31 — a level it had reached only once since mid-July. ”

The huge enthusiasm gap is still there! But about two months to go–dems could tighten the gap, also the October surprise 10.2.10 One Nation Working Together rally/event/march on DC!–and who knows!

What were the taxes during Reagan—>Bush Sr. —> Clinton—> Bush? Obama? better than Reagan? If you go on cutting taxes, the argument goes towards no taxes at all. It needs a fine balancing and compensation from time to time. Bush Jr. overcompensated and Obama is trying to clean that tax mess. Not easy.

For the record, the tax code is a mess all 67,000 pages of it. It’s only going to get worst in 2011 with the 1099-RS forms of transaction of more than $500! It’s a nightmare to fill taxes by yourself…we need some tax reform. I would prefer a national FairTax just to replace all the taxes. And

@Smitty, it looks like my art project finally has a bona fide backer!

” but trust me it is better for the economy to lower taxes during a recession”

Right Joe, and then your argument would be that you can’t raise taxes during a boom either.
Like I asked: if the Bush tax cuts are such a great idea, why didn’t he make them permanent?
What were his reasons for making them temporary?
Still waiting…

Here’s some good news for repubs; one in five goes to one in four!Nate Silver:

Republicans now have approximately a one-in-four chance of winning enough Senate seats in the Nov. 2 elections to claim an outright majority of the chamber, FiveThirtyEight’s latest forecasting model shows.

That the composition of the Senate is in doubt is not a new development; the model had assigned Republicans better than a one-in-five chance of claiming the chamber upon its debut at The New York Times two weeks ago. Nevertheless, nearly every day now seems to bring another sour piece of polling news for the Democrats.

@Y4E,
As for determining an acceptable tax rate, there needs to be dissussions on what government should spend the money on. Chiefly, I beleive government should spend money to prevent the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

No more PSA, no more National Endowments for the Arts, no more aid to other countries…etc. No more pointless ‘scitenific studies’.

Off topic but this way you can go stealth on avoiding those Jihadi whitetails.

It’s just more Alinsky, the playbook is open on his desk. “adopt your opponents argument and use it against him”

Rob, that is par for the course. There are plenty of things we can agree should be slashed and cut as per govt.spending, and other things we’d disagree on.
While Republicans love to rail against social programs, i wonder if they would join me in asking for the elimination of lifetime pensions for politicians?
And once again, if the Bush tax cuts were so great an idea, then why didn’t he make them permanent?

“And once again, if the Bush tax cuts were so great an idea, then why didn’t he make them permanent?”

Because Congress controls the purse, and the Democrats in Congress were not willing to so. You fucking dolt.

Bush has been out of office 2 fucking years and you fucksticks can’t stop hating on the man. Get some treatment, because that’s what’s known as obsession, and it’s not mentally healthy.

Smitty, I love you man, but are you seriously saying that DC needs to set up another division to determine what DC can cut?

Really, what should we cut back on? It’s political suicide to cut social spending in a recession when people are honestly far more likely not to be abusing the system. And I disagree that Republicans rail against social programs. Ask Lisa Graas how she feels about phasing out WIC or SSDI, or ask my parents about phasing out Medicare. It’s like asking a heroin junkie to vote for prohibition – these people literally believe they will die if the government doesn’t give them money.

Military spending isn’t ever on the table, because Hitler would rise from the dead and the whole world would suddenly succumb to socialism and/or Islam if we did that.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the combination of the military and the social programs are the economic equivalent of the ol’ one-two. What services would you cut?

I be up for cutting Congress’ pension, Commerce, EPA and the Education departments budgets.

Y4E ~ Quit asking the same stupid question over and over, and you won’t appear so stupid. You’ll still BE stupid, but not appear quite so stupid.

Seriously, if you had read ANY of the many news stories about the expiring tax cuts, you would have known why they were temporary and why it wasn’t Bush’s choice. Instead, you dwell in ignorance and stupidity and aggressively advertise it with your posting.

Did they shake you as a baby?

~~~~~~

“Infrastructure spending” – isn’t that what the stimulus was supposed to do before Obama spent it all on public employee unions?

What the heck is the new plan – to fill potholes with dollar bills?

Estragon — they had to cancel that plan. They could print the dollar bills but they couldn’t afford the rubber bands to bundle them…

As you may be aware, one way we pay the bills at LGF is through the support and generosity of our readers. We spend a lot of time maintaining, programming, and moderating this site, and we also now provide a custom-programmed blogging and commenting system for registered users (LGF Pages) with features you won’t find anywhere else — all without charging a penny up front. If you think LGF is worth supporting, please consider tossing some coins in the tip jar.

Here’s the link to donate through PayPal.

You can also subscribe to make regular donations of $10 a month.

(Coming soon: if you’re a registered lizard who subscribes to LGF, we’ll have a special feature that turns off all the advertisements for you, which will speed up the site greatly.)

And remember, if you buy a copy of the LGF Cookbook Volume 2 which includes delicious meals like Sharmuta’s low Cooked Pork Rectums, Kilgore Trout’s Roasted Racist Crow, Glazed Chicken Breasts Geller, and RSM’s White(supremacist)tail Stew.

Randy, you really must think we’re all fucking dolts if you think your lame-ass line about Democrats controlling the purse strings, as if they controlled congress between 2001-2003 when the tax cut was passed.Nice try limp-dick.
You are letting raging anger and bitterness stand in the way of the truth.Why don’t you really tell us why the tax cuts weren’t made permanent?
I happen to think that Bush was wise in not making those cuts permanent, so there goes your paranoia about my hating your lord and savior.
I get your whole schtick,Randy. It’s just that it’s so boring and lame that it’s kind of sad that you think you’re being entertaining. So I’m here to tell you that you are just sad. A sad clown with shit for brains.
But don’t ask me, ask your wife; I’m sure she agrees…

Oh Estrogen. Instead of complaining about me asking the same question that goes unanswered, then why don’t you enlighten us as to why it wasn’t Bush’s choice to make them permanent?
Whose choice was it?
It’s funny how the assholes around here are the first to talk shit…

Y4E:

Just as Senate Republicans were able to effect small changes in things like Obamacare and the FinReg legislation this year (changes that, granted, were ultimately rather empty), so too were Senate Dems, along with a small coterie of majority Sens led by the non-other McCain, able to limit the benefits of the Bush tax cuts through the threat of filibuster.

The GOP had nothing close to sixty seats at the time — indeed, by the time the cuts were signed into law, the Dems had assumed temporary control of the chamber with Jeffords’ defection — and had to deal with the reality that entailed.

Who the fuck do you think you’re kidding, you microcephalic moron? In 2001-2003, the Democrats fucking loved the filibuster, and threatened it as a matter of course against all Republican legislation, including non-binding resolutions on what to have for lunch.

Now go pound a bag of sand up your ass sideways. The adults are trying to have a conversation, and your adolescent whinging is fucking annoying.

Oh Randy, you need a drink to kill that bug up your ass. BTW, do you really think you’re scaring anybody with all that sailor talk? Real tough guy, eh? Typical pussy conservative talk. Not to mention hilarious to hear you lose your marbles like you do.

The truth is that Republicans helped put the kabbash on the permanence of the Bush tax-cuts, which come to think of it aren’t really Bush’s since it seems he wanted to make them permanent. Randy, you can’t bring yourself to be honest about this and so it took another adult on this thread to remind us.
So the Bush tax cuts should expire as Republicans intended it to do.
Randy, suck on that.

@Randy

Be very careful with the drift into “shtick.” What starts out as shtick becomes a habit, and before you know it, addiction, then tiresome redundancy from the POV of others.

“Bush tax cuts are such a great idea, then why didn’t he make them permanent?”

“which come to think of it aren’t really Bush’s”

So I was right all along and you were a typical fucking dipshit liberal (but I repeat myself, twice) in that you were wrong about this just like you’re wrong about every other thing you’ve ever opened your cumcatcher about.

Nice to see you admit it.

Now fuck off.