Senate Republicans say they'll block tax increase

"On Sunday, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he would support renewing tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy if that was his only choice, an indication Republicans are not united on the issue."

Way to go, Tan-Man!

"McConnell has said a bill extending the tax cuts for only low- and middle-income earners cannot pass the Senate."

Bring it on. I'd like to see a Senator cast his/her vote against middle class tax cuts and then explain why.

You will see that the Tea Party crowd would rather discuss Koran burning than the issue of taxes. This tax stuff is just too complicated.

FREE-DOOOOM! CUT TAXES!!!! Well, here is their big chance to make a point, and they are dumbfounded at how complicated it can be. Either that, or they are waiting to see what Rush and Sarah want them to say.

I am watching this with interest because it will show how much the Rep party is manipulated by the "fat cats". The rich Republicans will try to rally poor Republicans to vote against their own interests, so this move to cut middle class taxes SHOULD drive a wedge into that plan. Let's see if it works. I predict another distraction similar to the Koran burning.

You will see that the Tea Party crowd would rather discuss Koran burning than the issue of taxes. This tax stuff is just too complicated.

Oh, so now you want to talk taxes eh? Tea Party has been talking about this very issue for the past year. Where have you been? Guess its only when you want to screw over small business owners that you show up to talk taxes.

You know what I would do if I had 300 or so multibillionaire friends who were all looking at losing jillions in disposable income because of the expiration of these Bush tax cuts?

I would start a war. Then you can push through whatever legislation you want in the Senate along with your war declaration and nobody will second-guess you ever because you are a "patriot." What is a few thousand dead foreigners more or less? And taxpayers, the other guys, will foot the bill for the war anyway. So who is it going to be? Iran? North Korea? Mexico? Yemen? Somalia? Someone needs to pull out the list and get cracking.

I think good ole Mitch is bluffing. The Democrats will do everything in their power to have a straight up and down vote in the House/Senate on middle class tax cuts before the election. How many will vote no? Not many.

You know what I would do if I had 300 or so multibillionaire friends who were all looking at losing jillions in disposable income because of the expiration of these Bush tax cuts?

Wait, you're saying Obama should start a war with someone to get his way? Maybe to protect his union buddies? Thats pretty despicable. I mean, even Bush wasn't as bad as that.

I think good ole Mitch is bluffing. The Democrats will do everything in their power to have a straight up and down vote in the House/Senate on middle class tax cuts before the election. How many will vote no? Not many.

Good ole Mitch is introducing a bill to extend all the Bush Tax cuts. Lets look forward to the Dems having to explain why they voted to raise taxes on the poor.

"Democrats are worried"

How could the Democrats be worried? Haven't they been just great for the country?

McConnell only wants a vote on a combined middle income/upper income bill. He will do all he can not have a vote only on middle income cuts because that puts Republicans in a predicament.

In a best case scenario both parties shake themselves apart with infighting, or at least weaken their appeal to voters enough so that maybe we can get some representation based on principal instead of partisanship.

McConnell only wants a vote on a combined middle income/upper income bill. He will do all he can not have a vote only on middle income cuts because that puts Republicans in a predicament.

I don't think it really matters. Regardless, the Dems are still pushing the old class warfare, greed arguement. Everyone who's rich is greedy, as opposed to the wonderful Dems who merely want to steal the "rich's" money. They of course aren't greedy, no only the "rich" are.

With the trade deficit ballooning, and the savings rate declining into negative ranges, and infrastructure crumbling (they are digging up roads in West Virginia and turning them into gravel roads because the are cheaper to maintain), you have to ask WHEN are Americans going to start paying for what they want. And if a lot of money is with the Billionaires who might have to "suffer" by drinking slightly cheaper wine (from 800 dollars a bottle to 750 dollars a bottle) why are they are not fair target. And why is it that people like Molenir are so VERY CONCERNED about their welfare? Why? You could die on the street Molenir and they would not raise a finger to save you. I go with the StarTrek motto, of going with what is best for the most people. Basically, money is becoming more and more concentrated in corporations and in the hands of the rich and governments, if they are to survive as a viable concept, will have to go after them. We saw this in Australia with the government going after the mining companies. No one else has that much money, so why not?

"We’re going to take the next 50-some days to convince the public that’s exactly what the Republicans would do—back to the Bush policies," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on NBC television’s "Today" show.

Republicans could just as easily point out that extending the tax cuts takes us back to JFK's policies. But that would amount to a not too subtle reminder to Americans that this is not your your grandfather's -- or even your father's - - Democrat Party.

When someone offers money to politician for a favor, it's called a bribe. When a politician offers money (which is what a tax cut is) to a voter in order to get elected, it's not called a bribe, but should be. In both cases, the trading of favors/votes for money is corruption, plain and simple. It's endemic in the US political system. And people have the gall to complain about why their government is performing so badly???

This is great! I was hoping The Party of No would live up to their name on this issue. Dems can now push the line that the GOP blocked a tax cut for all hard-working Americans. Conservatives like tax cuts unless their rich bed-pals don't get to join in the party.

Awesome.

Why? You could die on the street Molenir and they would not raise a finger to save you.

The same could be said of anyone. Not just billionaires. And why should they be targetted? Because you envy their success? Because you want what they have earned and you haven't? Because you are greedy for another persons wealth? Thats really what this is about.

When someone offers money to politician for a favor, it's called a bribe. When a politician offers money (which is what a tax cut is) to a voter in order to get elected, it's not called a bribe, but should be.

I'm sorry. You are saying, that allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money amounts to a bribe? I'd say, increasing taxes causes a brake on the economy. It slows it. People have less money to spend, rich or poor. When they have less to spend, they spend less. They give less to charity. It doesn't matter who they increase the taxes on, that is true. So, whats happening now, is that taxes are set to go up, in the middle of a recession, an act that will hurt the US economy, when it really, really doesn't need it. The Dems are saying, they will be gracious and allow most of those who are currently paying taxes to continue paying what they are now. However they will take a lot more from those who make more. Again, hurting the economy.

This is great! I was hoping The Party of No would live up to their name on this issue. Dems can now push the line that the GOP blocked a tax cut for all hard-working Americans. Conservatives like tax cuts unless their rich bed-pals don't get to join in the party.

And Republicans can counter by pointing out how Dems are desperate to raise taxes. They were offered a chance to keep taxes the same as they have been for the past 10 years, and instead, voted to raise taxes, in the middle of a recession. Yep, theres a winning hand right there. Bring it on Sushi. I'll play my hand against yours any day. Voting for a Dem, hurts the economy. Voting for a Republican helps it.

Those of us who are American, vote and pay taxes, know that the 'evil rich' Obama uses in his shameless demagoguery are largely small business owners or self-made folks.

They create jobs because they create wealth. They also spend a lot. The little economics Obama knows is outdated Marxist nonsense, and on top of that it dates from an era that well precedes our now huge service economy.

The many, many Americans now in service are well aware that the 'rich' are often the ones whose spending helps you survive in whatever may be your niche market.

IOW, to average Americans the 'rich' are real people, like us, who have achieved through hard work and yes, sometimes luck, the upward mobility our system historically provides. We know that in as little as a few years time that could easily be us, or that places could easily switch.

But we also know that since 07 the Reid Pelosi Congress and then the Obama administration have changed all of that, and that the American Dream is fast fading from grasp...

It's going to be cheap 'n nasty entertainment watching GOP members campaigning in their home states. 'Excuse me Mr. Congressman. Your GOP party has been pushing to cut taxes for years, has it not?'

'Erhhr..yes.'

'Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to keep our taxes low, do they not?'

'Erhhr..yes.'

'Well, excuse me Mr. Congressman, but why have you promised to vote against a bill that will keep our taxes low?'

'Erhhr...'

Political suicide. Damn, this is awesome. :-)

“Only in Washington could someone propose a tax hike as an antidote to a recession,”

You gotta love how this idiot McConnell and people like Molenir try to spin it and pretend that by filibustering the extension of a tax cut to the middle-class that somehow the Democrats are actually the ones canceling the cuts and/or taxing said middle-class. The bottom line is that just before an election for Congress the Republicans are threatening to block a bill that would have given the middle-class an extended tax break, screwing 97% of the tax-payers in favour of 3%.

The 'funny' part will be watching the tea-baggers and other Repubs believe it's somehow Obama's fault and scorn him for the GOP blocking the bill (well, the mindless sheep, anyway. Hopefully some are smart enough to see the truth).

Molenir, read your last post again. You completely contradicted yourself.

They (We all) got the tax breaks that bush pushed through. Time over, they go back up. So be it.

But since we're so indebted and the republicans just scream and holler about the nations debts so much, they need to be right there refusing to allow anybody to receive tax relief and cheering the increases. < :-)

The poverty rate in America has hit record high levels. People know something is very wrong and that the Keynesian approach has failed and was a deeply dishonest and cynical way to make a power grab that has been decades in the making.

Blacks and Latinos have been hardest hit. Real unemployment is close to 16 percent. Men are being hit harder than women, as a search of 'mancession' will prove.

Tax cuts for 'the wealthy' were fine under JFK - - when it was understood that cutting taxes means more investment from these same people, more jobs:

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

I'm aware many conservatives don't like how liberals often label them as stupid, ignorant, etc. Some of this criticism may well be uncalled for and harsh. Not any longer. Here's the deal: Conservatives, who in general support lower taxes, will find themselves voting for GOP candidates who have pledged to block a bill that will extend a GOP-written bill to keep taxes low for the middle class. ie: vote GOP and we'll RAISE your taxes by blocking this bill. I'm sorry - if that's not stupid then I love George W. Bush and all of his family. This is absolutely priceless. ROFL! :-)

Election prospects have suddenly and dramatically improved for the Democrats.

Wow. Just wow. Who would have thought that homespun "Tea Party" economic philosophy apparently permeated the rarified air of the Camelot presidency of JFK ?

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

Heck, the Dems couldn't have written this script any better. lol!

The largest Corporation have the highest profits in years. Why? better sales numbers? of course, not. because they slashed payroll and are not rehiring. so, tax cuts for corps and the wealthy are not indicative to spending those cuts on creating new jobs.

The republicans have spouted for years how tax cuts create jobs and for years I've waited for the jobs to start. Then after years of tax cuts and no jobs they are back onto the same old story, tax cuts create jobs.

Talk about a circle of lies and distortions. < :-)

This is just incredible. Despite spending more taxpayer money than any government in history during the bush jnr years, the GOP has now morphed into a low tax-supporting party. This bill will keep taxes low. The initial bill was written by the GOP and contains the very essence - no, the very DNA - of what the GOP now proclaims to stand for. And yet every single GOP member has pledged to vote to block it's extension. Unreal.

The Party of No:

"Red-district Democrats are pressuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi to extend Bush-era income tax rates for all brackets, revealing a high-stakes rift between the party's vulnerable moderates and its safe liberals as the issue increasingly dominates the national debate.

"POLITICO [ journalism organization ] has obtained a draft of a letter from rank-and-file lawmakers to Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them not to let tax rates rise for Americans at the highest income levels."

It's like a woman who gives birth to a baby this week and then throws it out next week.

I'm not in agreement to that and hope they don't buckle. Raise them taxes up. < :-)

Sorry, but if we're only talking about the top 2-3 %, and if we're talking about putting the taxes back to where they were a decade ago, then I'm all for it. Is it fair? Nope. But we have a debt to pay back.

I second that.

SushiSaki3:

YOU ARE DELUSIONL! The Democrat bill is going down with the public as a TAX INCREASE. Read the headline again

Senate Republicans say they'll block tax increase

Republicans are not trying to reverse the cuts for the middle class, they are trying to extend ALL tax cut now in place. Most Americns are not engaged in the class war you support.

"Most Americns are not engaged in the class war you support."

I second that.

techall, extending a tax cut is not a tax increase whichever way you look at it.

SuperLib if we were on Facebook, I'd "Like" your post. < :-)

Some Democrats, like Sens Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are siding with Republicans against raising taxes on anyone during a fragile economic recovery.

“I don’t think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through,” Sen Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said Monday. “The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year.”

Democrats and Indepentent calling it a tax increase, what part of that don't you understnd?

Republicans want lower taxes, a strong military, and a balanced budget. If they get their wishes, the Federal Government will consist only of the Pentagon and the Post Office. The Democrats are far from perfect, but at least they have retained some semblance of sanity.

Voting for a Dem, hurts the economy. Voting for a Republican helps it.

How did that work out for you Molenir with Clinton. Economy rose with tax INCREASES. With G.W. taxes were cut, and economy TANKED. Let me say that again--TANKED!!!!

Republicans want lower taxes, a strong military, and a balanced budget. If they get their wishes, the Federal Government will consist only of the Pentagon and the Post Office

Nah, they wanted to cut the Post Office too, (tried to privatize it partially) and they FAILED big time. Especially when those rural routes were getting cut down like hell. Losing those red neck votes were beginning to hurt big time. Really, all they want is the Pentagon, and war. They should change their name to the WAR party, as they all feel that we have money to destroy and kill people but NEVER EVER to build and help people. EVER!!!

@TheRat:

Ah such a selevtive memory. The economy under Clinton did not improve until the Republicans took over both houses of congress (same off year election Obama faces). Remember when the National Parks were temporarily closed? That was because the Republicans would not approve Clintons defecit filled budget. They reached an agreement and the economy improved and actually showed a surplus on the budget.

"Those of us who are American, vote and pay taxes"

You keep doing this Tim. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is not a real American. This is a serious logical blind spot you have. Do you think everyone posting here is Japanese or something?

There are many Americans who are just like you, but strongly disagree with you. Get over it.

You need to see where the average wealthy person got his or her wealth. I think you would be in for a shock. The Goldman Sachs crew are not boot strappers, and Warren Buffett would disagree with you on most points. Your rugged individualist blinders were given to you by rich Republicans who want you to vote with them. But they aren't like you, they just want you to vote against your own interests.

Case in point. Mr. Moderate John McCain has 7 homes and thinks that 5 million net worth "rich". He is a Republican Senator, and he cares about you and your trailer? You tea partiers keep on working to cut taxes for the rich and cut spending for the poor. That is what they want you to do. Just be happy you are not eligible under selective service.

TheRat shares many of my sentiments.

Hey Tim, I'm not a 'real American' either but I'm still able to discuss issues affecting Americans on JT.

BTW, is a 'real American' a tried and trusted patriot or any random person who shows up at a rally for Our Sarah? :-)

Anyway, what really made my day today was seeing the GOP overwhelmingly pledge to terminate extension of a bill they themselves wrote. Isn't keeping taxes low good enough for the tax-cut-loving folk in the GOP? The GOP was for cutting taxes last week; this week they're against cutting taxes. 'The Party of No' just became 'The Party of I Don't Know' and the victims of their own insanity. :-)

Remove all taxes!

No tax = a Bentley for everyone!

Vote for me!

How did that work out for you Molenir with Clinton. Economy rose with tax INCREASES. With G.W. taxes were cut, and economy TANKED. Let me say that again--TANKED!!!!

Ah such a selevtive memory.

I know, I found it amusing too. Apparently we are supposed to forget that Bush inherited a recession as well. Lets also not forget 9-11 and having to fight a war. And yet, despite all that, the economy boomed, until the housing market tanked. Don't think this is the forum for that, so I'll simply say, it would be just as accurate to say it "Frank-ed" rather then tanked. Still, I'm willing to give Clinton some credit for his time in office. Admittedly, he wouldn't have been as well thought of, had the Republicans not forced his hand, but still, when it came down to it, he finally went along with em for the ride.

'The Party of No' just became 'The Party of I Don't Know' and the victims of their own insanity. :-)

Ya know, the party of no, sounds so much better then the party of stupidity and incompetence. After all, you put the Dems in charge, and thats about all they seem to come up with. Oh, must not forget class envy and greed as their primary operating philosophy as well. Yep, Stupidity, incompetence, and greed.

With one move, the GOP has booted middle America in the guts yet again while simultaneously handing the Dems a brutal campaign angle to hammer The Party of No only weeks out from critical midterm elections. The GOP 'strategist' who cooked up this stunningly stupid idea should be banned from politics for life. :-)

Well looks like we can now officially put Tax along with spender on Obama now.

Molenir, I had to rub my eyes there - you just wrote bush 'inherited a recession' and 'having to fight a war.'

Both of those comments are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start except to ask did you major in Revisionist History?

Sail, your last post clearly highlights your yawning lack of understanding of this issue. Your votes helped put America's most proliferously spending party - the GOP - in power. But sure, let's lay into Obama for having to fix the recession your votes helped create.

Obama can't even get his own party on the same page.

Blue Dogs are in revolt on this one.

"Dems Likely to Extend Bush Tax Cuts"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/

The GOP used to be happy simply voting against every bill put up by the Dems. Now, in what can only be described as a fit of sheer insanity, the GOP is now voting to block its own bills. Politics doesn't get much wilder - or stranger - than this. :-)

The promised 'Summer of Recovery' never materialized.

Why should the American public side with the Democrat Party?

Obamanomics is a titanic failure.

I know, I found it amusing too. Apparently we are supposed to forget that Bush inherited a recession as well. Lets also not forget 9-11 and having to fight a war. And yet, despite all that, the economy boomed... (!!)

LOL!! Here we are, heading into fall, and Molenir's still serving up the Kool-Aid.

Bush's tax cuts were touted in that they would create many millions of new jobs. That clearly didn't happen.

The only "boom" to the economy was based on the housing bubble -- consumer spending driven by people taking out of the equity in their homes. That's what the Bush years brought this country -- a house of cards. The people that most represent Bush's "boom" are folks like his buddy Kenny-Boy Lay and Bernie Madoff.

"I know, I found it amusing too. Apparently we are supposed to forget that Bush inherited a recession as well. Lets also not forget 9-11 and having to fight a war. And yet, despite all that, the economy boomed... (!!)"

Definitely the most hilarious comment on the site today. Molenir must SERIOUSLY live in an alternate reality. And like I said earlier, it's quite comical to watch them say that the GOP filibustering an extension on tax cuts means Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes. The level of denial is quite sad.

Conservatives, it's time to get a grip. You're falling over yourselves coming up with soundbite reasons to protect the fortunes of the elite of America's Rich List, some of the same folks who are offshoring your jobs and cutting your salaries. Stop pretending they care about you. They never did, don't, and won't. These are people who will replace your IT job in NY with 3 jobs in Delhi at the stroke of a pen. You support these guys at your own risk.

Both of those comments are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start except to ask did you major in Revisionist History?

LOL!! Here we are, heading into fall, and Molenir's still serving up the Kool-Aid.

Which part of my statement was inaccurate? 9-11? The fact that Bush inherited a recession, or that the economy boomed for most of the Bush years?

Wait, smith, sushi, and yabits. I know you guys are kool-aid drinkers, you guys can't have drunk so much you've lost touch with reality. Please, at least try to remember what happened 10 years ago. Or are you all so young you don't remember the "Bush Recession" he inherited from Clinton? The claimed reason for the Tax cuts in the first place? In fact, the first few years, I remember people like Hannity and such constantly claiming it was the "Clinton Recession" which was true, even if its a bit hypocritical considering their later stance.

Just to refresh your memory, it was when the dot.com bubble burst. I know you want to think ill of everything Republican, but try, at least try to not rewrite history merely to suit your preferences.

These are people who will replace your IT job in NY with 3 jobs in Delhi at the stroke of a pen" That is absolutely true, however what Sushi doesn't want you to know, is that on the flip of that, a company will be required to hire 3 American citizens for a job that requires one. Don't start pretending the Unions are really on your side either, union organizing is just another business with a different flavor; the leaders are just as fat as those bankers these days. Vote every last incumbent out, regardless of party. Force a third party

"These are people who will replace your IT job in NY with 3 jobs in Delhi at the stroke of a pen" That is absolutely true,"

Uh ok. So you agree. Why trust those people who do that to you? Why do tea partiers vote for R candidates? You know that the Republican party is divided into Rich fat cats 5%, Poor slobs 70% and Preachers 25%. The Rich fat cats lost some traction with some poor slobs and the preachers are starting to field their own candidates, so the fat cats went out and created a tea party to do ONE THING. Cut their taxes. The fat cats foot the bill and the tea party tries to rabble rouse the bigoted and ignorant poor slobs to get out the vote.

Wake up! It is not about Obama this and Muslim that. It is about rich people distracting and mind controlling poor gullible people to the point that they will vote to bankrupt the polity, reduce government services, send their sons to war, and leave the fat cats rich and powerful. You know who died in Iraq? Poor southerners.

"Vote every last incumbent out, regardless of party. Force a third party"

I can't think of a better way to wind up with a government like Japan's. Get rid of people who can get things done and stand up to Wall Street, the Chinese, the Russians, and stand up for health care, Social Security, and doing the right thing.

Switch them out for people who can't even spell and who have never been out of the country. See what happens. They will be snatched up by lobbyists two weeks after the election for a song, and then they will act just like incumbents. If you have been alive long enough, you will know that it always happens. Donald Regan sold out the Reagan revolution in a month or two.

But back up for a minute. It is cute that you are talking about putting ALL incumbents out, but the Tea Party is only fielding R candidates, am I correct? They don't even run as independents. They won't VOTE as independents either.

Molenir - "Which part of my statement was inaccurate? The fact that Bush inherited a recession,"

How do twist a surplus into a "recession"?

"or that the economy boomed for most of the Bush years?"

Until it collapsed in the biggest economic disaster we have seen in 80 years. House of cards.

"Please, at least try to remember what happened 10 years ago."

Yes, bush inherited a surplus then quickly blew it after he launched 2 wars and slashed taxes. That's what I remember.

"I remember people like Hannity and such constantly claiming it was the "Clinton Recession"

Hannity is a conservative - what do you expect? Reality? Hannity's "Clinton Recession" was in fact the longest period of U.S. economic growth in recent times.

"Just to refresh your memory, it was when the dot.com bubble burst. I know you want to think ill of everything Republican, but try, at least try to not rewrite history merely to suit your preferences."

Bang goes any credibility you ever had.

Which part of my statement was inaccurate? 9-11? The fact that Bush inherited a recession, or that the economy boomed for most of the Bush years?

That the economy "boomed" during most of the Bush years is pure fantasy. And the implication that tax cuts had anything to do with it. The rise in GDP during Bush's two terms was a direct result of a bubble in the housing industry -- which had nothing to do with the tax cuts. (The cuts only helped drive the federal budget back deep into the red.)

The true measure of any economic rise is whether it's sustainable or not -- and the best measure of sustainability comes via job creation and low unemployment statistics. The Bush "boom" was lacking in both areas.

I remember people like Hannity and such constantly claiming it was the "Clinton Recession"

Yeah, and out of the same mouth they'll give the Republicans credit for every positive achievement of Clinton's two terms.

You boys beat me to it. Good job!

Taxes are best when they are egalitarian, everyone ends up with an equal income regardless of what they are initially paid. This is economically crucial because history has shown that people are happiest when they feel no envy with the rich cats of society and the best tax is therefore one that leaves everyone with nothing.

There ya go, problem solved.

Clinton-worship, the ace up Obama's sleeve when the legacy media finally admits they were hoodwinked, and good, by Axelrod and Co. ?

I still can't believe what has happened today. If conservative voters stay true, they will shaft themselves with higher taxes.

Three questions:

1/ How could anyone be so stupid to vote for someone who has pledged to raise your taxes,

2/ How could anyone be so stupid to vocally defend someone who has pledged to raise your taxes?

3/ How do you spell 'conservative voter'?

The conservatives have sunk to an entirely new low today.

Molenir,

we are supposed to forget that Bush inherited a recession as well.

Poop on that. bush walked into office with a surplus of revenue. What recession?

or that the economy boomed for most of the Bush years?

Double poop. It only boomed for those companies sending jobs overseas. Wasn't booming for all those millions who lost those jobs.

Molenir, looks like you're rewriting history again. <:-)

Molenir

The claimed reason for the Tax cuts in the first place?

I'll play for a minute. Let's play that we were in a recession when bush took office, from the Clinton administration, why would the government, under bush, give away $4Trillion. You make absolutely no sense.

Oh, maybe that tax stimulation would generate jobs. It generated jobs in China, India and Mexico. It didn't generate any jobs in the US.

Molenir, please explain what you're saying so I can understand where you're coming from. < :-)

lol, I don't think I've ever seen a group so determined to rewrite history to suit themselves. aday is the most open minded of the group, and thats saying a lot. Claiming that Bush inherited a surplus, and leaving it at that, is naive at best. And willful ignorance as well.

Bang goes any credibility you ever had.

Allow me to quote you on this. In denying what happened, you guys just lost all your credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

Just 2 links for you guys to refresh your obviously overstrained brains, since you want to insist that there was just a surplus and no recession.

The true measure of any economic rise is whether it's sustainable or not -- and the best measure of sustainability comes via job creation and low unemployment statistics. The Bush "boom" was lacking in both areas.

I'm no economist, but this, is to put it simply, nonsense. Both on what you claim is the "true measure" as well as Bush's Boom. For most of Bush's presidency we had low unemployment, despite large numbers of illegals living and working in the states. I don't like Bush, but I'm at least honest about what happened during his Presidency.

I'll play for a minute. Let's play that we were in a recession when bush took office, from the Clinton administration, why would the government, under bush, give away $4Trillion. You make absolutely no sense.

Couple points. First, it wasn't 4 trillion dollars they were "giving away". It was significantly less then that. And allowing people to keep more of their own money, isn't giving it away, it is taking less. Now as to the sense argument. What you fail to grasp, is that the private sector pays for the public sector. What Bush was doing, in taking less from the private sector, was allowing it to invest its money, in order to generate more economic activity. Without question, this worked. As has happened many times when taxes are cut, the tax revenues actually increased. People went out, and with the money they saved, spent it, invested it, used it in ways that made them, and businesses, more money. If anything, it was these tax cuts, that allowed the US to absorb the shock from 9-11.

I don't know why people are still so desperate to believe the Keynsian economic model, when all the evidence is that it fails. Cutting taxes, generates and spurs growth, raising taxes, and using the money to attempt to spur private sector growth, using targeted monies, has limited effectiveness. And mostly acts merely as a way to redistribute wealth. And raising taxes, acts as a brake on the economic engine. It always has. Don't look to this to be any different. If the Dems raise taxes, it will hurt the economy. There is no way around that point. It doesn't matter who they raise taxes on, the "rich" who are job creators, or the middle-class, who are job promoters. Either one will hurt the economy.

Molenir....

What I'd like to know is how the letting the tax cuts expire will affect things in real terms given the fact that it's only going to affect the top 3%. I understand what you're saying about tax cuts in general, but I'm assuming a lot of that has to do with tax cuts for the middle class. We're not talking about raising taxes on that significant portion of the US.

So how well does the model hold up when you're talking about reinstating taxes on such a small percentage of people? Are they really able to have that much of an impact on the recovery?

What you're getting into is economic theory here. I'll try to answer as best I can. The answer is, who do you think pays taxes? The majority of taxes are paid by the high income earners. And what do they do with the money they save in taxes? Do you think the high income people, just squirrel their money away in a mattress? They invest it, save it, spend it. As the amount they are tossing around in these areas, is so much larger then the lower income level people, they have a correspondingly great impact on the economy. These are the people who create jobs. By investing, by owning and running small businesses, etc. You take their money to redistribute it to the people you think should have it, it does not help the economy.

I'm not going to get into the class warfare crap the Dems keep trying to push, in order to encourage greed and envy, and punish success.

I don't think I've ever seen a group so determined to rewrite history to suit themselves

First of all, I never denied the fact that the economy went into a recession soon after Bush took office in 2001. According to the official "record-keeper" of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the economy peaked in March of 2001 and that marked the start of a recession.

According to the same NBER, the recessionary conditions lasted until sometime in 2003.

I take great exception with your characterizing the years from 2003 to the start of the meltdown in 2007 as "boom years." That is you completely rewriting history. Bush's team touted "52 months of uninterrupted job growth. But job growth during Bush's two terms leading up to the meltdown was no higher than 2% -- the weakest overall for an economy not in recession in many decades. (No one but the most self-serving historical revisionist would call that a "boom.")

You seem to want to deny that the foremost driver for the tepid economy was the extraction of equity from homes.

As the amount they are tossing around in these areas, is so much larger then the lower income level people, they have a correspondingly great impact on the economy.

This is so wrong-headed it's funny. Sam Walton practically built an empire retailing to "lower income level" people. (The same case can be made for the success of companies like Aaron Rents and Rent-a-Center.)

Whatever money Sam Walton "tossed around" came back to him many times over from a lot of lower income level people.

Molenir,

The "dot-com bubble" (or sometimes "IT bubble"[1] or "TMT bubble") was a speculative bubble covering roughly 1995–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000 with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52) during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the more recent Internet sector and related fields. While the latter part was a boom and bust cycle, the Internet boom sometimes is meant to refer to the steady commercial growth of the Internet with the advent of the world wide web as exemplified by the first release of the Mosaic web browser in 1993 and continuing through the 1990s.

Yeah I remember that and Clinton eased and calmed the market as bush was coming into office. Just before he choked on pretzels and was falling off his bicycle regularly.

I don't like Bush

Huh, you didn't say that. You're a bush lover, good grief.

I ask:

I'll play for a minute. Let's play that we were in a recession when bush took office, from the Clinton administration, why would the government, under bush, give away $4Trillion. You make absolutely no sense.

When we're so far in debt, jobs not stimulated by the bush tax cuts; what will continuing the tax cuts do besides line your pockets? < :-)

People went out, and with the money they saved, spent it, invested it, used it in ways that made them, and businesses, more money. If anything, it was these tax cuts, that allowed the US to absorb the shock from 9-11.

It's was 5+ trillion in new debt that allowed the US to absorb the shock from 9-11. It's more then apparent that the cut in taxes was simply replaced by issuing debt. Honestly, people had to know taxes increases were going to have to come, how else are going to pay for nearly doubling your debt load over 8 years. Bush and Obama have both created economies based on borrowing money.

So yabits admits Bush had a recession to start his term, aday still wants to deny it. Haven't heard yet from Smith, wonder if he still wants to try rewriting history.

Bush's team touted "52 months of uninterrupted job growth. But job growth during Bush's two terms leading up to the meltdown was no higher than 2% -- the weakest overall for an economy not in recession in many decades.

And what was the unemployment level during those years? You are the ones attempting to rewrite history to make it seem like the Bush years had nothing going for it. From 2002 through 2007, the economy was strong. You could claim that this was on the strength of a bubble economy, but you would then be forced to admit that the Clinton years were similarly fueled by a bubble economy.

This is so wrong-headed it's funny. Sam Walton practically built an empire retailing to "lower income level" people. (The same case can be made for the success of companies like Aaron Rents and Rent-a-Center.)

Interesting to note, that he built his empire, by catering to people who pay very nearly nothing in taxes. Walton, and his heirs, paid a huge amount in taxes. In addition they employ a huge number of people, thereby again proving my point.

Huh, you didn't say that. You're a bush lover, good grief.

No, I'm not. I've said this repeatedly. I didn't like Bush. He was a big government guy. He essentially destroyed the Republican party. He is directly responsible for the disaster we've had with Obama. He was definitely not a conservative. I am. He had more in common with the Democrats then conservative Republicans like myself. The only areas I applaud him for, were his supreme court picks, and his cutting taxes. Those 2 things are about the only things he did right in my opinion.

It's was 5+ trillion in new debt that allowed the US to absorb the shock from 9-11.

Now that is just making things up out of whole cloth. Sorry, but the deficit spending didn't happen until 2002, well after 9-11, where the tax cut, was in effect, and pushing the economy. In fact, it went into effect in 2001. While you could make the claim that the 2003 tax cuts added directly to the deficits. You're attempt to claim that the Bush deficits are the reason the US was able to bounce back from 9-11, is simply nonsense. And I'd like to add, that just making up figures to assert your position is pathetic as well. I guess I have to add you to the list of people wanting to rewrite history to suit your agenda. Well, at least you're in good company.

Sure, Obama, make the people who already pay most of the taxes pay even more, that'll fix everything, LOL.

While you could make the claim that the 2003 tax cuts added directly to the deficits.

Yeh!! Uh, if you can't figure this out, when there is a reduction in tax revenue there is LESS money coming into the treasury so deficits. Oh, where were those new jobs from those tax cuts. I don't remember millions upon millions of new jobs coming into being. I DO remember Bush claiming that flippin a burger was now classified as a industrial / manufacturing job. LOL.

The Reid Pelosi Obama government tripled the deficit and doubled the unemployment rate.

Obama is now radioactive. Democrat politicians are afraid to appear on the campaign trail with the guy.

Yeh!! Uh, if you can't figure this out, when there is a reduction in tax revenue there is LESS money coming into the treasury so deficits. Oh, where were those new jobs from those tax cuts. I don't remember millions upon millions of new jobs coming into being.

What an amazing memory, and completely faulty. The only thing more faulty then your memory is your logic. Cutting taxes spurs economic growth, which leads to wealth creation, and amazingly enough, higher tax revenues, as more people, make more money. This has been borne out time and again, whenever taxes have been cut. Also you are completly disregarding the impact of 9-11, as well as the fact that Bush had sustained job growth for nearly his entire presidency after he cut those taxes. His downfall though, was his spendthrift ways, going along with the Dems and pushing big government programs. And Republicans followed him like Lemmings, right off a cliff. They got what they deserved, and now Dems are going to have to pay for their own stupidity. Taking Bush's spending, and quadrupling it. Spending more in 2 years, then Bush did in 8.

Obama is now radioactive. Democrat politicians are afraid to appear on the campaign trail with the guy.

If they are in a district thats even close, hell yeah. The man is kryptonite.

These Democrats are the most economically illiterate administration in US history:

" A small section of the massive health care law mandates that beginning in 2012, all companies will have to issue a 1099 tax form not only to contracted workers, as they must already do, but also to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a year. "

Madness.

Hey Molenir, how does having to borrow $100sBillions to offset tax cuts help this country? < :-)

And I'd like to add, that just making up figures to assert your position is pathetic as well.

My apologizes I mean 4.97 trillion, which is so much different then 5 trillion, I mean really rounding up at .03 is apparently pathetic? Bush started with 5.73 trillion and ended with 10.7 (10.7-5.73 = 4.97) but I suppose the treasury department is trying to rewrite history too? http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np put in the start of bush's first term and the end of his second term. It's not hard to find actually facts, instead of pretending to know. 4.97 trillion, those tax cuts sure paid for themselves, oh wait they didn't... the national debt increased 89%. Of course Bush kept the economy going by dumping huge amounts of money into the economy, where do you think the 4.97 trillion went?

It shouldn't be a surprise though mortgage and consumer debt also had huge increases in 2000's. Really the fault doesn't only rest with government but ever American who lived outside of their means chasing the dream or keeping up with the Jones. Now the piper has to be payed, but I guess it's easier to blame the "government".

My apologizes I mean 4.97 trillion, which is so much different then 5 trillion, I mean really rounding up at .03 is apparently pathetic? Bush started with 5.73 trillion and ended with 10.7 (10.7-5.73 = 4.97) but I suppose the treasury department is trying to rewrite history too?

Allow me to quote your previous post...

It's was 5+ trillion in new debt that allowed the US to absorb the shock from 9-11.

So, somehow, the 5 trillion in debt Bush ran up, was all magically spent in 2002, and thus allowed the US to absorb the effects of 9-11? Your quoting to me the debt figure that Bush ran up over 8 years is nonsense. In fact only serves to undercut your own previous position. The 5 trillion in debt didn't offset 9-11. If you had claimed that the 400 billion additional debt, in 2002, and 600 billion debt from 2003 helped, then you would have had a case, but your claim that it was the 5 trillion total that Bush foolishly wasted, that allowed the US to continue its economic growth after 9-11, is nonsense. It was mostly the tax cuts that offset the economic effects, and helped pull the US out of the Clinton recession.

It was mostly the tax cuts that offset the economic effects, and helped pull the US out of the Clinton recession.

So new jobs came and it was all peaches and cream afterwards. Never saw any data about job growth or increases in wages. It has all been down, down, down. Keep making it up. You are sounding like a Moonie Molenir.

So yabits admits Bush had a recession to start his term

yabits admits that the recession started in March of 2001 and the GOP Kool-Aid drinkers desperately wanted to call it a "Clinton recession" for purely political reasons.

And what was the unemployment level during those years? You are the ones attempting to rewrite history to make it seem like the Bush years had nothing going for it.

In none of the Bush years was the economy "booming." The American middle class was undergoing swift erosion in its ranks.

You could claim that this was on the strength of a bubble economy, but you would then be forced to admit that the Clinton years were similarly fueled by a bubble economy.

First of all, I do claim it because it was an absolute fact that the main fuel driving economic growth during the Bush years was people taking equity out of their homes and spending it. All the while, consumer confidence was spiraling downwards -- as if they were admitting to themselves that this couldn't last.

Secondly, regarding the Clinton years, yes, the stock market bubble did fuel a lot of the growth in the economy -- but that bubble was based on a lot of high-tech companies like Apple, Google, Cisco, etc., that provided actual value and jobs to the economy -- and which are still highly successful today.

Hey Molenir, how does having to borrow $100sBillions to offset tax cuts help this country? < :-)

Tough question Molenir?

Try to justify how the continued tax cuts would help this country, not just your pocket book. < :-)

First of all, I do claim it because it was an absolute fact that the main fuel driving economic growth during the Bush years was people taking equity out of their homes and spending it. All the while, consumer confidence was spiraling downwards -- as if they were admitting to themselves that this couldn't last.

Well, you're basically making stuff up here, but that is to be expected. Hindsight is after all perfect vision. However consumer confidence wasn't "spiraling downward". Despite your assertion. In fact for much of Bush's term in office, the opposite of that was in fact true. Looking back now, we can see the troubling signs. Heck, I saw them in 2005, and pulled out of the housing market.

Hey Molenir, how does having to borrow $100sBillions to offset tax cuts help this country? < :-)

It doesn't. And thats where Republicans lost their way. If they had cut spending, then it would have been good for both the people of the country, as well as the government and the economy. Unfortunately they decided to both cut taxes, and increase spending. Leading us to where we are today.

However consumer confidence wasn't "spiraling downward". Despite your assertion. In fact for much of Bush's term in office, the opposite of that was in fact true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Consumer_confidence_average_Jan_2009.png

Anyone can look at the chart and see how consumer confidence spiraled down into negative regions in 2005 -- supposedly in the midst of a "booming" economy. It hovered between 0 and 50 (barely confident) throughout 2006 before, ironically, reaching a peak at the start of 2007 -- right before the entire thing collapsed.

Ah, so now it was a booming economy? Yabits, make up your mind, please. And while you're doing so, please explain why you feel compelled to discuss consumer confidence during the Bush years anyway. This thread is about tax increases now, not how much confidence consumers had last year.

Yahoo (this morning) has more bad news for so-called progressives still supporting Obama in his destructive and idiotic class war :

" More Democrats joined Republicans on Wednesday in calling for the preservation of tax breaks for Americans of every income level, bolting this election season from President Barack Obama's plan to preserve cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 and let taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans. "

Like I said before, raising taxes on anyone, during a recession, is idiotic. Simply more evidence of how out of touch and incompetent the President really is.

Curiously cutting government spending during a recession is also stupid...

How about Americans just pay their bills? Can they do even that?

Molenir: "Ah, so now it was a booming economy? Yabits, make up your mind,"

I like how you take yabits, "--SUPPOSEDLY in the midst of a (open quotation to start sarcasm) "booming" (closing quotation) economy" and try to twist it so he was 'admitting' (and yes, those quotation marks mean I'm paraphrasing you but don't agree myself) the economy was booming. You really are a very bad cherry-picker and manipulator. And EVERYTHING people have said on this site today and yesterday about you revising history in your mind is 100% true.

You're been shot down again and again on your comments, and the best you can do is simply cherry-pick what people say and infer it means what you your revisions suggest. I used to have a bit of credibility for you, man, but it's LONG gone. Yabits even gave you stats proving consumer confidence was way down when you claimed it was way up and you STILL can't admit you are completely wrong.

Sad... but then, denial is in part what caused everything to fall apart during the bush years. I reckon it'll take a good 40 years or so for the people who still claim bush was great to finally be able to say the history books are correct and he was one of the worst presidents ever.

It's the same with the current situation; you haven't yet touched on how damaging the tea-party movement is to the Republican party as a whole... not once... because you simply cannot. Like I said, all you can do is keep shifting to talk about the past, and about the Dems in particular, making up history as you go.

So let me ask you: what do you think, Molenir, about the tea-party movement taking votes away from the GOP and more or less ensuring they do not meet their goals to retake the Senate?

Like I said before, raising taxes on anyone, during a recession, is idiotic

Anyone making $500,000 will have taxes lowered on the first 50% of their income. Not restoring the original rates on the second half would deny the Treasury of nearly 3/4 trillion dollars. It is idiotic to the point of lunacy to advocate turning away that revenue and still try to claim to be fiscally responsible.

The complete lack of intellectual integrity shows through in so many of these Tea Party supporters.

Want higher taxes and more government? Vote Democrat.

The republicans have spouted for years how tax cuts create jobs and for years I've waited for the jobs to start. Then after years of tax cuts and no jobs they are back onto the same old story, tax cuts create jobs. Talk about a circle of lies and distortions. < :-)

Well actually they did work, under bush jr. the US had its lowest unemployment rate in decades(2003-2007), that of course all came to end with the recession hitting big time at the very end of his second term.

Well actually they did work, under bush jr. the US had its lowest unemployment rate in decades(2003-2007)

Gee it's fun just to make things up, isn't it? Like this: Every American became a millionaire during the "Bush Jr." years -- until the money became worthless. Wow, that was easy.

In the real world, however, you have to use numbers for comparison. Lowest unemployment rate in decades? Let's check:

1944-1954 -- the average rate was 3.4% 1954-1964 -- 5.5% (Eisenhower recession) 1964-1974 -- 4.6% 1974-1984 -- 7.2% 1984-1994 -- 6.5% (Reagan-Bush years) 1994-2004 -- 5.1%

And finally, between 2003 and 2007: 5.1%

The numbers show that there was no difference in unemployment between these cherry-picked Bush "junior" years -- before the economy totally collapsed -- and the (largely) Clinton decade that preceded it. America enjoyed much lower unemployment in the late 40s early 50s, and through much of the 1960s.

Anyhow touting supposed low unemployment and tax cut claims before an entire economy goes in the toilet is a bit like Mrs. Lincoln saying that she enjoyed the play right up until the gunshot.

So between 1994 and 2004, unemployment was 5.1%

After bush gave the massive tax cuts to the rich the unemployment rate never dropped. Then as the years waned and the tax cuts were winding down to an end, the ultra rich moguls banked their profits from downsizing and sending jobs over seas. Not creating jobs here, overseas.

Now they want the tax cuts to continue, why? < :-)

Curiously cutting government spending during a recession is also stupid...

Thats only true if you buy into Keynsian economic theory. Which sadly has been thoroughly discredited. So, if you're still stupid enough to believe that, then sure. If however you can look at reality, and see that mild reductions in government expenditures, scaling government back so that it is no longer in the red, overwhelms the potential downsides, then you've got a leg up on those who are still thinking with the failed 30s era model.

Anyone making $500,000 will have taxes lowered on the first 50% of their income. Not restoring the original rates on the second half would deny the Treasury of nearly 3/4 trillion dollars. It is idiotic to the point of lunacy to advocate turning away that revenue and still try to claim to be fiscally responsible.

Ah, and if they raised that tax rate to 100% on everyone, that would mean the Treasury would be making trillions more. Honestly, this giveaway by the treasury has got to stop. Raise the tax rate up to 100% for everyone. Make it fair. lol. Come on yabits, why not just come out and admit it. Your primary philosophy, is that the money people earn really belongs to the government. They merely allow you to take some of it home because they're so good and kind.

After bush gave the massive tax cuts to the rich the unemployment rate never dropped.

Well actually, it did. It fluctuated but remained very low. Oddly enough, despite 9-11, and a host of other issues. Shocking really, considering the predictions of economic disaster and meltdown.

Ah, and if they raised that tax rate to 100% on everyone,

Yeah, and if a frog had wings....

Dream on.

Your primary philosophy, is that the money people earn really belongs to the government.

My primary philosophy goes back to a wise man who was asked about taxation and said "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's." He didn't say: "You get to decide what is Caesar's." Even chose a tax-collecter into inner circle. With your penchant for false witness, it is clear that your primary philosphy is patterned after the father of lies.

Gee it's fun just to make things up,

I don't go by decade averages.

I didn't make anything up at all. In 2006 and 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.6% now in 98(just barely in 98)-2000 it was lower, but excluding those three years the unemployment rate had never been that low since 1968, however though once the recession(2001( ended and until the recession of 2008 the unemployment rate was going back down under Bush. So to suggest it doesn't work at all to create jobs or lower unemployment is just not true. I may have misspoken in claiming it was the lowest in decades, but my main point still stands. And for your info mrs. lincoln did enjoy the play.

Its also important to keep in mind yabits that those tax cuts didn't cause the economy to collapse.

I didn't make anything up at all. In 2006 and 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.6% now in 98(just barely in 98)-2000 it was lower, but excluding those three years the unemployment rate had never been that low since 1968

The problem with your claim is that the three years from 1998 to 2000 when the unemployment rate was lower the the best of the Bush years, the tax rate was higher -- raised by Bill Clinton's 1993 modest tax hikes.

Anyone who tries to put forth the theory that lowering taxes helped lower the unemployment rate has to face the clear fact that, in the years from '98 to 2000, elevated rates also lowered unemployment.

So maybe taxes don't have much to do with it, when kept to within a certain range. Earlier decades that saw even lower unemployment rates had marginal tax rates that were far, far higher.

The problem with your claim is that the three years from 1998 to 2000 when the unemployment rate was lower the the best of the Bush years, the tax rate was higher -- raised by Bill Clinton's 1993 modest tax hikes. Anyone who tries to put forth the theory that lowering taxes helped lower the unemployment rate has to face the clear fact that, in the years from '98 to 2000, elevated rates also lowered unemployment. So maybe taxes don't have much to do with it, when kept to within a certain range. Earlier decades that saw even lower unemployment rates had marginal tax rates that were far, far higher.

No my point can still stand, lower taxes can create jobs, it doesn't harm the argument at all. Yes maybe there is a certain zone of tax rates where it doesn't have much impact but that still doesn't make what I said not true. Most likely economic conditions dictate when a tax rate begins to affect an economy in a noticeable negative or positive way, during those last 3 years in the late 90's the economy was growing at a very healthy rate, in a recession though or slow growth periods higher taxes probably would hurt job creation.

My whole point in my original response was that the person claimed that bush's tax cuts did nothing in the early to mid 2000's to help create jobs, or if we take the post I'm quoting quite literally no jobs were ever created during the bush years the unemployment rate stayed the same year in and year out through the bush years, my argument is the fact that the unemployment rate went down and kept going down until 2008 would suggest that maybe bush's tax cuts did play a role in helping to create jobs, they certainly didn't hurt it. Basically I'm taking issue with the "no jobs" part of the quote.

The fact that companies in the US have moved their operations from one state to another because that state has lower taxes than the other state would suggest that lower taxes can play a role in job creation.

my argument is the fact that the unemployment rate went down and kept going down until 2008 would suggest that maybe bush's tax cuts did play a role in helping to create jobs

By that I'm talking about after the recession that came into effect in 2001 ended.

@Molenir:

Thats only true if you buy into Keynsian economic theory. Which sadly has been thoroughly discredited.

Be careful: setting up a strawman and knocking it down like that hurts your credibility and weakens your argument. Junnama didn't mention circa 1930s Keynesian economics, you did.

Anyway, the claim that Keynesian economics has been "thoroughly discredited" is factually incorrect. As with many economic theories, Keynesian economic principles have been refined and improved over the years, and Keynesian theories are very much alive. Many governments and economists are now revisiting Keynes' ideas with renewed interest as a result of the financial crisis and recession.

Some examples of Keynesian principles where opinion is changing in favor of Keynes include:

The use of fiscal stimulus Avoiding large trade deficits and surpluses The use of capital controls to prevent large, international, speculative capital movements Skepticism about the overuse of mathematical models in academics and decision making (think financial crisis).

Keynes talked about a lot more than just fiscal stimulus, and his ideas are still very useful. They are far from "thoroughly discredited." It appears it's not just the US, Great Britain, and China that have a renewed interest in Keynes. Many other countries are climbing aboard as well. Here is a wikipedia link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Keynesian_resurgence#Displacement_by_monetarism_and_New_Classical_economics:_1979.E2.80.931984

If however you can look at reality, and see that mild reductions in government expenditures, scaling government back so that it is no longer in the red, overwhelms the potential downsides

In order to cut taxes you also have to cut spending, and I for one can respect and appreciate this perfectly reasonable conservative position. A lot of other credible conservatives think this way, too (too bad the Republicans under the Bush Administration didn't).

The corollary to that is if you don't cut spending you can't cut taxes either, unless you agree with Vice President Cheney that deficits don't matter.

The US is spending money on entitlements, fiscal stimulus, corporate bailouts, and two wars faster than a drunken sailor. Blame is irrelevant -- the deficit is not a political debate, but an undeniable fact about the country's finances. Some of the very same people who say "Tax Cuts!" are also saying "Hands off my Medicare!" even as health care costs are spiraling out of control, just as some people who say "stick it to the rich!" pay little or no taxes, want something for nothing, and won't give up their entitlements without a fight.

It doesn't matter: money is going out a lot faster than it's coming in.

Fact is, the US will have to raise taxes, reduce entitlements, AND get out of the wars it finds itself in. It won't do this to reduce unemployment or spur economic growth, mind you. It will do it to remain solvent. A higher tax on the rich is a good, and relatively painless, place to start.

Just as corporations try to charge as much as the market will bear to maximize profit, the US will distribute the tax burden among those most able to afford it.

Keyenesian? Who said that? Simple facts: the government is an huge employer of people. The government will have to cut head count if it cuts spending. Cutting head count during a recession will reduce demand if those cut have no jobs to go to. Cutting demand during a recession is stupid. If there is some dispute about this among economists, I've never heard it...

Oh yeah, and as far as the passionate argument made earlier about the new tax changes crushing small businesses goes, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 3% of filers with business profits would actually face higher taxes under the Obama administration's plan to let the tax cuts expire.

3% is not exactly a majority of small businesses, I'd say.

Almost enough to filibuster a bill in the Senate, though. WSY Mitch McConnell?

The GOP holding up the small business lending program was unconsiencable in my book. It was clear that the financial markets had short circuited in this area of lending. I guess borrowing from the fed for nothing and buying tbills was an easier money making strategy....

Obama 's war on the American Dream is in a quagmire.

The rich, greedy GOP Republicans, are so kind to themselves, while the rest of the country starves to death!

@Junnama

What you described is actually Keynesian. Keynesianism says that recessions may come with a reduction in demand and that therefore the government should ideally raise spending and lower taxes to bolster demand to avoid a downward spiral of job losses and lowering demand, or at the very least avoid doing anything to further reduce demand (cut spending or raise taxes).

In other words, if you even consider that demand is important in economic analysis and that government actions have influence on it, your point of view is at least partly Keynesian. Non-keynesians believe other things, for example that demand is not the problem but that it's only a normal restructuring of the economy that's moving from one sector affected by a bubble to another (which doesn't explain why EVERY sector loses jobs in a recession).

Keynesian isn't a bad word. History has proven that it works, the countries that left the Great Depression faster were the ones that adopted "keynesian" policies faster. The countries who continued on the conventional wisdom of classical liberal economics hiked taxes, cut spending and saw the Great Depression linger on for much longer.

Note that the Republicans themselves choose Keynesianism when it suits them, when they see "a recession is no time for a tax hike", the reasoning behind it is Keynesian. Non-keynesian ideas say instead that there's no difference between a recession and a boom in terms of the negative effects of hiking taxes. Even more, some non-Keynesian ideas (like classical liberal economics) say that taxes SHOULD be hiked in a recession, to lower the deficit, because government deficit means emitting more government bonds which "crowds out" private investment and thus lower investment in the economy. So it would be better to raise taxes and have a balanced budget than to cut taxes.

So again, Republicans are being inconsistent. If they believe that tax cuts in a recession are a bad idea, then they are keynesian and should embrace stimulus packages. If they refute keynesianism, then they should argue FOR tax hikes to help balance the budget, not against them. To my knowledge, there is no coherent point of view or economic model in which "you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession" and "Keynes was wrong, stimulus is useless in a recession" can coexist.