The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Cannon Shell]

Riot acts like "every economist" agrees with her version of the world, remember this article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion

[Cannon Shell]

More anti-Riot opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...416429402.html

[Cannon Shell]

Surely Riot will find fault with this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

An opinion piece that doesnt "favor" Wall Street in the WSJ

She will still disagree i'm sure

[Cannon Shell]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wsreel_opinion

Another WSJ piece that finds fault with a republican!

Too bad you dont find such even handed, fair analysis in Riot's typically leftist links

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Surely Riot will find fault with this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

An opinion piece that doesnt "favor" Wall Street in the WSJ

She will still disagree i'm sure

No, actually I agree with alot of that. I even read the WSJ regularly all by myself

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

More anti-Riot opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...416429402.html

I think I'll start labeling what I say as "anti-Chuck" opinion. Because, you know, it's not a thread talking about, or disagreeing about, the politics, it's a thread about other posters

Let's talk about this: what do you think about this deal that Obama and the GOP cut? What do you like about it, what do you dislike about it? Do you think it has any chance of passing intact?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think I'll start labeling what I say as "anti-Chuck" opinion. Because, you know, it's not a thread talking about, or disagreeing about, the politics, it's a thread about other posters

Let's talk about this: what do you think about this deal that Obama and the GOP cut? What do you like about it, what do you dislike about it? Do you think it has any chance of passing intact?

You should take it as a compliment. Few posters are so rigid in their views that they can be described as a noun, verb and adverb.

I don't know that we know what the deal actually is. I know what has been given but there may be a sacrificial lamb or two in there.

For certain I believe the continuation of the tax cuts are a positive step. The payroll tax holiday was something I was asking for 2 years ago, glad that made it. The estate tax compromise was ok I guess but the reality is it is grossly unfair to tax someone for dying. The expensing provision was good too but extending it further would have help as it appears like most of the deal to be Obama trying to stimulate the economy on the way to reelection. Extending the unemployment benefits 13 months is fine with me. The other mostly symbolic things are immaterial to me.

I dont know if it will pass intact but I would think that the democrats wont risk messing with it too much. Regardless of how much you or they hate it, a deal has been made that directly benefits most Americans (except those whose u/e benefits ran out). The head democrat has signed on. If they block or signifigantly mess with it, the blame will squarely fall on them.

[Riot]

You should take it as a compliment. Few posters are so rigid in their views that they can be described as a noun, verb and adverb.

It's easier to make up my own mind, than have to wait for Hannity, Beck and Breitbach to tell me what to think

For certain I believe the continuation of the tax cuts are a positive step. The payroll tax holiday was something I was asking for 2 years ago, glad that made it.

I agree it's good to put money in people's pockets, and it's a reasonably generous amount considering, but I don't like that he's taken it out of employee's social security contribution. Bad precedent, as it risks permanence.

The estate tax compromise was ok I guess but the reality is it is grossly unfair to tax someone for dying.

I agree. I think the estate tax should be zero.

The expensing provision was good too but extending it further would have help as it appears like most of the deal to be Obama trying to stimulate the economy on the way to reelection.

Or stimulating the economy because people are homeless, out of work, starving, and unemployment is still raging. But hey, details, right? It would be nice if that were a three year plan, agreed.

I dont know if it will pass intact but I would think that the democrats wont risk messing with it too much. Regardless of how much you or they hate it, a deal has been made that directly benefits most Americans (except those whose u/e benefits ran out). The head democrat has signed on. If they block or signifigantly mess with it, the blame will squarely fall on them.

I think that the trillions Obama got are true stimulus and very helpful, and the lesser amount the GOP got isn't stimulating and is clearly simply budget busting. At this point as a trade off I think the benefit outweighs the bad. Vote for it.

However - that none of it is funded is outrageous to me, and I do have a big problem with that, especially for the tax cuts for the wealthy. We could cut the cost of this thing by half by eliminating that one thing, that is supported by the public. Or even just eliminate tax cuts for dollars over 2 million - that would still pay for nearly half this. I think that would pass the House, and I think it would pass the Senate, too.

But to hold the whole thing up with no votes, and wait for the next Congress, is absurd, because of the real unemployed that will suffer.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's easier to make up my own mind, than have to wait for Hannity, Beck and Breitbach to tell me what to think

I have never watched more than a few minutes of either Beck or Hannity. Didn't even know Breitbach had a show.

She's feeling guilty for being a dedicated HuffPo participant.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have never watched more than a few minutes of either Beck or Hannity. Didn't even know Breitbach had a show.

Breitbach doesn't have a show, he has a blog. You can catch Beck on the radio airwaves or in your local grocery fast-book aisle.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree it's good to put money in people's pockets, and it's a reasonably generous amount considering, but I don't like that he's taken it out of employee's social security contribution. Bad precedent, as it risks permanence.
.

please please please please please be true!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

please please please please please be true!!

That you want permanence, or do not? (don't understand what you are saying)

Social Security is completely fine, as it is, for everyone up to 40 years from now. It's had tweeks in the past, it needs another one or two for that time. Like Keith Richards during the late 70's, the predictions of it's impending doom are usually greatly exaggerated.

[Riot]

Riot acts like "every economist" agrees with her version of the world, remember this article

You have it backwards. It's because virtually every economist tells us that giving tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't create jobs, that I support that economic policy. It's not my version of the world, it's theirs.

Actually what the economists say is that giving tax cuts to the very wealthy creates on average about 0.30 of economic stimulus per dollar invested. Giving unemployment benefits produces about 1.61 (average) of economic stimulus. I know where I prefer our government to spend the money.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...MoreIn_Opinion[/quote]

Good for you! This whole thread I've been asking you to find one economist that says trickle-down, as disastrous as it was during Reagan and since, is still some kind of a valid economic model, and you finally come up with two. Dated today. But at least there is one counter-view to the majority.