U.S. Politics, 15

[Jon Sprunk]

I'm not sure whether people don't believe that stuff will happen, or just don't care. Business expansion/investment is not controlled solely by demand, and anyone who thinks that just doesn't understand how businesses operate. Expansion and investment always entail a certain degree of risk and costs, and how businesses evaluate those risks and costs can materially affect their decisions to expand or not. For capital expansion in particular, they tend to look more than a year or two down the road.

I think all of that is particularly true for privately held companies, where the owners are making decisions directly, and whose personal financial futures are tied up with their company's.

With all due respect... I'm not an economist, but I can see that if republicans knew anything about how businesses operate, we'd be swimming in a big-time boom right now instead of pining for the days of "tax-and-spend" Bill Clinton.

The repubs in Washington, DC don't know anything about business or the economy -- they take their marching orders from Big Business. As far as Obama goes, my biggest complaint about him is that he seems to think that's a perfectly acceptible way to govern, too.

[Shryke]

President Obama is considering whether to push early next year for an overhaul of the income tax code to lower rates and raise revenues in what would be his first major effort to begin addressing the long-term growth of the national debt.

While administration officials cautioned on Thursday that no decisions have been made and that any debate in Congress could take years, Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/politics/10tax.html?_r=1

[Merentha]

Bernie Sanders is the man. He's been going off for over an hour on C-SPAN2 about tax breaks to billionaires.

edit:

he Obama administration is reauthorizing this massive, ginormous tax break for those who don't need it, and then saying that next year we're going to have a "national conversation" about deficits. How the hell can he say that with a straight face?

This is the same administration that is having a World Press Freedom day.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

A few reminders as we come to the end of the year.

1. Sean Hannity has still not been waterboarded for charity

2. Guantanamo Bay is still open

3. There is still no coherent plan for a memorial (or anything else) at the former site of the World Trade Center.

[Lord O' Bones]

A few reminders as we come to the end of the year.

1. Sean Hannity has still not been waterboarded for charity

2. Guantanamo Bay is still open

3. There is still no coherent plan for a memorial (or anything else) at the former site of the World Trade Center.

3. We have a mosque coming, damnit!

[Shryke]

Just FYI, Bernie Sanders is currently "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" filibustering the tax thing right now.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

With all due respect... I'm not an economist, but I can see that if republicans knew anything about how businesses operate, we'd be swimming in a big-time boom right now instead of pining for the days of "tax-and-spend" Bill Clinton.

The repubs in Washington, DC don't know anything about business or the economy -- they take their marching orders from Big Business. As far as Obama goes, my biggest complaint about him is that he seems to think that's a perfectly acceptible way to govern, too.

Polemics aside, what in particular do you disagree with regarding businesses making the decision to invest/expand? Do you think that things like tax rates, mandates, and employment-related costs don't matter to them? I talk with people like that weekly in my job, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say business is good, but they have no idea what shit is heading down the pike so they're not going to put any of their money at risk.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And Republicans just blocked a bill for $8 billion in medical relief for 9/11 responders while making tax cuts for the rich their top legislative priority.

Didn't we already have the discussion on this bill? The bill does a lot more than just pay for the medical claims of first responders. That's why even the Obama Administration opposed it.

[Shryke]

Polemics aside, what in particular do you disagree with regarding businesses making the decision to invest/expand? Do you think that things like tax rates, mandates, and employment-related costs don't matter to them? I talk with people like that weekly in my job, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say business is good, but they have no idea what shit is heading down the pike so they're not going to put any of their money at risk.

Exactly. It's not about taxes being too high, it's about uncertainty.

Businesses contract in times of uncertainty.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Exactly. It's not about taxes being too high, it's about uncertainty.

Businesses contract in times of uncertainty.

As applied to the current situation, we have uncertainty regarding the effects of the ACA, whether the tax cuts will be extended, and if they are extended through 2012, whether or not they'll become permanent after that or not. Regardless of where you stand on any of those issues, that's not a good thing.

[alguien]

Didn't we already have the discussion on this bill? The bill does a lot more than just pay for the medical claims of first responders. That's why even the Obama Administration opposed it.

The original discussion was how it was stopped in the House and Weiner's furious denunciation. IIRC, you predicted that it would stay that way once the bill came up again. I predicted it would pass the House, since the GOP didn't want that negative press. The House passed the bill next time it came around. I actually posted on this months back, but no one commented.

Now its just being bally-whooed the same way in the Senate. The bill will pass, but right now, its just being used in a game of chicken like nearly every other damn bill on the table right now.

Seriously, I'm getting pretty damn tired of the Senate. I know its purpose is, in some ways, slow things down, but this just feels ridiculous. The fact that a 57-40 bill vote fails just seems idiotic to me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The original discussion was how it was stopped in the House and Weiner's furious denunciation. IIRC, you predicted that it would stay that way once the bill came up again. I predicted it would pass the House, since the GOP didn't want that negative press. The House passed the bill next time it came around. I actually posted on this months back, but no one commented.

I remember saying that the Democrats would bring up a more clean version of the bill, but that apparently didn't happen. This bill does provide money for first responders, but if I remember correctly, that's less than 15% of the total. The rest is just pork for NYC that they're trying to enact by pretending the entire bill is just about first responders.

Also, unrelated, there's a lot of dissention among Republicans about the tax deal too, even among conservatives. I think if the President tries a "renegotiation" of the bill to mollify House Democrats, the whole thing will fall apart. So we may well have to wait until January.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/12/10/its_on_conservatives_duke_it_out_over_tax_deal

Charles Krauthammer, who is pretty influential among conservatives, really hates the deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html

I think I've personally swung around to wanting it killed as well. I'd rather just let the rates go up, though maybe raise the threshhold above the current 200-250k, then include more bullshit targeted subsidies, stimulus, and cuts.

[alguien]

I remember saying that the Democrats would bring up a more clean version of the bill, but that apparently didn't happen. This bill does provide money for first responders, but if I remember correctly, that's less than 15% of the total. The rest is just pork for NYC that they're trying to enact by pretending the entire bill is just about first responders.

Whoa, whoa. Lets not use the 15% as fact just yet, OK? ;) I remember you saying its debatable about what costs went where. I know I posted links that showed costs, due to the incredible amount of chronic conditions, were much higher than originally anticipated. I think you were basing this figure on what they planned on suing for? Or is there something else?

Either way, it passed the House, which to me shows most believe it didn't carry the pork you're claiming. That or they were cowed by the thought of voting against it, which didn't seem to be a problem the first time.

[Fez]

Supposedly Schumer had tried to get Obama to go after a deal that kept the bush tax cuts in place for anyone making under $1 million. I haven't seen the numbers on how much different that would have been for the deficit, but it would have been interesting to hear whether the GOP would have considered it.

That was voted on last Saturday as well, it also failed but not by as much since a few of the more conservative Democrats like Manchin who voted against the $250,000 one did vote for this one, on the other hand Durbin voted against it since it was too high. Still didn't get any Republican support though.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Whoa, whoa. Lets not use the 15% as fact just yet, OK? ;) I remember you saying its debatable about what costs went where. I know I posted links that showed costs, due to the incredible amount of chronic conditions, were much higher than originally anticipated. I think you were basing this figure on what they planned on suing for? Or is there something else?

I don't remember all the details, to tell you the truth. I do know that one big issue was the issue of first responders v. the general public, though. As I recall, the bill's benefits are not limited just to first responders.

Either way, it passed the House, which to me shows most believe it didn't carry the pork you're claiming.

Er, it sounds like you're arguing that anything that passes the House can't have pork by definition....

That or they were cowed by the thought of voting against it, which didn't seem to be a problem the first time.

The problem the first time was that the Dems attempted to pass it through a procedure that required a 2/3 votes, because they wanted to deprive the GOP of the ability to offer amendments. They had a majority back then, but not 2/3, so it failed. This time, they followed the normal procedure and so didn't require a 2/3, so it passed. The whole shit hitting the fan last time was Weiner and Peter King arguing over the decision to use the 2/3 route. King just urged the regular process, and apparently, his view ended up prevailing.

[alguien]

Er, it sounds like you're arguing that anything that passes the House can't have pork by definition....

Not necessarily. More like 85% pork product.

The problem the first time was that the Dems attempted to pass it through a procedure that required a 2/3 votes, because they wanted to deprive the GOP of the ability to offer amendments. They had a majority back then, but not 2/3, so it failed. This time, they followed the normal procedure and so didn't require a 2/3, so it passed. The whole shit hitting the fan last time was Weiner and Peter King arguing over the decision to use the 2/3 route. King just urged the regular process, and apparently, his view ended up prevailing.

The odd part was, as you say, King voted for the bill. So it was a bit ridiculous to stall it on procedural concerns, since the exact same bill passed eventually anyway.

[Swordfish]

Not necessarily. More like 85% pork product.

The odd part was, as you say, King voted for the bill. So it was a bit ridiculous to stall it on procedural concerns, since the exact same bill passed eventually anyway.

Is it the exact same bill?

I seem to recall the price tag before being around $11b, but according to FLOW's article, the price tag on this one is only around $8b.

But I could just be misremembering it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not necessarily. More like 85% pork product.

The odd part was, as you say, King voted for the bill. So it was a bit ridiculous to stall it on procedural concerns, since the exact same bill passed eventually anyway.

King voted for the bill both times. He was pissed the first time because Democrats insisted on a 2/3 procedure they pretty much knew wouldn't pass. He said he understood the (mostly GOP) objections to the bill, so he didn't begrudge them voting against it. He just wanted it to pass. That's why Weiner blowing up at him was so odd.

[Jon Sprunk]

Polemics aside, what in particular do you disagree with regarding businesses making the decision to invest/expand? Do you think that things like tax rates, mandates, and employment-related costs don't matter to them? I talk with people like that weekly in my job, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say business is good, but they have no idea what shit is heading down the pike so they're not going to put any of their money at risk.

I don't disagree with businesses making their own decisions to invest/expand. That wasn't the thrust of my post.

I was simply debunking this fallacy that republicans know anything about business or the economy. If they did, Team Bush would have taken the strong economy he inherited from Clinton, and in eight years pushed employment down to 1%, created more-massive budget surpluses, assisted in creating about 90 million jobs (only 4x what Clinton did, so should be easy for a repub, right?). And then he could have handed off that super-economy to his successor (who, likely, would also be a republican). Instead, those at the very top of the pyramid have become even more wealthy, while the middle- and lower-class fell further behind.

I love when republican friends/family say they can't stand Obama. Because their party created him. He wouldn't have had a snowball's chance if the GOP was even marginally competent.

[alguien]

Is it the exact same bill?

I seem to recall the price tag before being around $11b, but according to FLOW's article, the price tag on this one is only around $8b.

But I could just be misremembering it.

IIRC, its the same bill. At least the article I read said the Zadrogas bill passed, but didn't mention any changes, which I would think it would have.

About to go out and have a beerski, so no time to look it up. :cheers:

ETA: nevermind, see my reply to FLOW