I’m sure you realize the Democratic Party is a big tent and also understand how things work with respect to the Republican minority in the US Senate and 60 votes.
But instead he signed a bill that extended those tax cuts. A bill written by his own party and passed at his request.
Yes, but we’re talking about the deficit and there is plenty of blame to go around to creating it:Bush did it.
thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/10/02/172396/cheney-deficit-debt/
"In 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Bush administration’s economic team met to discuss a second round of tax cuts, which would follow Bush’s 2001 cuts. At the meeting, “then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill pleaded that the government — already running a $158 billion deficit — was careening toward a fiscal crisis.” Allegedly, Cheney replied by saying that “deficits don’t matter.”
Which includes a Quantative Easing program by the FED, whom no one of either party (except Ron Paul) objected to. It’s been estimated that more than $2 Trillion of the “deficit” has still been unspent. And don’t forget the 1988 corporate bailout which both Bush and Obama supported wholeheartedly. Just saying both appointed Bernanke and both are to blame. Let’s face it, the debt could easily reach $30 Trillion by 2020, no matter who’s President."In 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Bush administration’s economic team met to discuss a second round of tax cuts, which would follow Bush’s 2001 cuts. At the meeting, “then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill pleaded that the government — already running a $158 billion deficit — was careening toward a fiscal crisis.” Allegedly, Cheney replied by saying that “deficits don’t matter.”
Six years later, the Bush administration’s consistent belief that deficits don’t matter has increased the national debt to over $10 trillion. This is the highest dollar amount ever, and pushes the debt to 69% of the gross domestic product, which is the highest percentage since 1955."
And Obama managed to get it to $14 trillion in 2 years.
You know deep inside what it is, Estesbob. Come on.
Uncertainty is certain.And, oh yes, the DOW fell -600 points at closing.
Ain’t life grand?
There are some rough weeks ahead.
Indeed.Uncertainty is certain.
Most people’s definition of rich is anybody that makes more than they doYou know deep inside what it is, Estesbob. Come on.
Like I told Darryl earlier-----the plan is “Spread the wealth around.” Remember that one?
“Raise taxes on the rich and stick it to those greedy bastards until it hurts. Oh, yes, and redistribute wealth.”:dts:
How about someone who loses more than you?Works for me
Actually, the definition used by the Obama administration was $250,000 per year. And the “tax increases” involved a return to the tax rate that they enjoyed before the Bush dramatically reduced their taxes in 2001, tax cuts that were supposed to have expired at the end of 2010, not only for the wealthiest Americans, but for all. In fact, the Obama administration has wanted to keep the lower tax rates for those earning less than $250,000. That translates into “tax increases” for the rich only in Republican-speak. The truth of the matter is that the Obama administration has sought a tax decrease for those earning less than $250,000 a year, assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire as they were supposed to.
Ugh. The last week’s activity in the stock market just wiped out all the gains from QE2, except gas and food prices are still higher. I’d hope he’s not so stupid as to try it again.
If true, it will only add to the deficit without any authorization from Congress and do nothing for the economy.
Actually, Bernanke should think about selling some of the bonds he made capital gains on and REDUCE the deficit with them.
The democrats had control of both houses of congress and the Presidency they could have raised taxes if they wanted to In fact up until teddy died they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senste