Why are people obsessing over letting the tax cuts expire?

[liberalpragmatist]

The debate basically comes down to repealing the tax cuts (which would take effect in 2010) or letting them simply expire (which would happen in 2011).

So basically, people on this board are tearing the hair out over a one year difference.

Moreover, Obama's team has said reports they will just let them expire are premature. They may opt to do that, but they're looking at both options.

Obama is going to have his hands full next year. If repealing the tax cuts a year early is going to be a contentious fight, it makes sense to simply let them expire -- there's nothing the GOP can do about it, and it happens anyway.

I can understand people fretting about certain things. For example, I'm not thrilled with the Hillary-as-SoS bit (I like Hill, I just don't think SoS is really the right role for her). But seriously? Everyone's crying bloody murder because the tax cuts may be gone in 2011 instead of 2010?

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. A year is a long time and a lot of money.

Money we don't have.

Obama made a promise and I expect him to keep it.

[Idealism]

2. I'm with you

The differance is estimated at about an extra $200 billion next year in tax receipts the federal government may spend somewhere, but compared to the $8.5 trillion that they are prepared to slap down this year, the figure pales by comparison. While $200 billion is no small thing, I don't understand the differance is waiting one year... Politically it will be much easier on him to let them expire in their due time also

[sutz12]

3. Maybe Congress will take the issue out of his hands.

If they pass a law to repeal, all he would have to do is sign it, or not.
It's really a congressional issue anyway.

:shrug:

[kirby]

4. Because we are talking a hundred billion dollars

for just that 1 year which will not be available for the pressing needs of these times.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. We're already deep in deficits

This is all deficit spending, and the $200 billion that makes up the difference b/w doing it one year earlier is a drop in the bucket. Deficits really don't matter right now -- all the money we're spending is based on borrowing, with the government acting as spender of last resort.

[Pale Blue Dot]

10. Attitudes like yours are EXACTLY why this crisis is occuring.

Thanks.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. Well, you quote Keynes

Right now this is classic Keynesian economics -- as advocated by Krugman, Delong, Robert Reich. And given the size of the coming deficit, $200 bil. is not a lot more.

In any event, as I've said, no decision has been made -- the Obama camp has said they're looking at the options and will decide later whether to push for a repeal right now or simply let the cuts expire.

[elleng]

5. Good question.

Maybe 'cause 'pugs will 'complain' that Dems 'raising taxes,' and O 'going back on promise/flip-flop,' neither of which hold water, but 'pugs are NEVER concerned about mere facts.

[fascisthunter]

6. you realize how far in debt this country is right?

this is no time for political expediency nor capitulation due to a fear of political retaliation.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. We were supposed to "believe"

Scant evidence of our President-Elect's actual actions exist over a reasonably long legislative tenure, and we're supposed to take it on faith that he'll really lay it down for the little guy.

Meanwhile, more faith-based monies, cozying up with FISA, adventurism in Afghanistan, questionable relationships with Wall Street veterans, offshore drilling and other accomodations don't sit so well with many of us on the left.

Why can't he keep his word on this? Didn't he just win by a fairly handy majority? Wasn't this supposed to be a really IMPORTANT tentpole of his show?

[liberalpragmatist]

8. We're already in giant deficits

The extra revenue from repealing the tax cuts a year earlier than they would expire is a drop in the bucket.

In any event, any mainstream economist will tell you that deficits really don't matter right now. We're in a steep recession and the government needs to act as the spender of last resort.

[TexasObserver]

12. You're right. Obama isn't going to hobble his early programs with that.

It's his to-do list, and he'll do it when he thinks it is time to do it.

He won't be bothered by the hyperventilating of short tempered keyboard warriors, either, thank God.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Translation: He'll do whatever he goddamn well pleases, regardless of promises made.

[TexasObserver]

16. No translation needed. Do you always attempt to build straw men?

That's really weak

Translation: try something intellectually honest or don't bother me.

[Jim Sagle]

17. Countertranslation: Ppppfffffbbbbtt!!!!!

[JJ]

13. A big psychological and philosophical statement

especially since those tax cuts are a huge symbol of Bush and the GOP as well as not a minor cause of the current meltdown and coming depression.

[JJ]

14. Furthermore

Someone needs to finally stand up and call out supply-side trickle down for the fraud it is, and by not repealing the Bush give-away to the millionaires, it looks like Obama believes in Friedman voo-doo, and if that's the case, then we are truly screwn.

[melm00se]

18. Taxes are a political

hot potato and no one wants to be labeled as having voted "for a tax increase" going into the mid term elections.

[stray cat]

19. Because people like to rant and now that the election is over options are limited

[NNN0LHI]

20. Because the country is broke and we need the money

And I want to see my wealthy republican relatives heads explode.

Don

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Because it's time the rich made some sacfirices

after partying at the nation's expense for 28 years.

One year's worth of taxes is a lot of money, which we need.

There's nobody who whines as loudly as a rich person asked to pay taxes. They need to grow up and just pay like the rest of us.