If they have to compromise, the compromise should be equitable

[Fresh_Start]

one year unemployment extension, one year tax cut extension.
Or two years for two years.
Right now, what exactly is going to force the GOP House to do anything for the the millions of unemployed next year when this deal expires?

[lob1]

1. Exactly. And during the next election cycle, tax cuts

will once again be used as a major talking point for the pubs.

[abelenkpe]

2. Hell

they'll easily be able to say we can't afford to extend unemployment further and deny the extension if needed next year. (Many states are already in the red paying out unemployment as it is.)

Unless you think tax revenues are going to magically rise and millions of people will find themselves in good paying secure jobs the calls for deficit reduction will only increase. That means cutting social programs and cutting government jobs adding more people to the list of the unemployed. And while were at it we'll pay less into social security making those who claim it is insolvent even more brazen in their NEED to gut it or better yet, privatize it.

But hey, the top 1% will get a tax break equal to what it would take to employ two or three middle class workers which they'll use to invest in commodities that everyone else will be paying more for as we attempt to jumpstart the economy with QE.

Good plan.

[patrice]

4. Agreed! THEIR carrot = their GAME . . . QE?

[abelenkpe]

5. FED is buying long term treasury securities

Some people think that is printing money. It isn't. It's meant to force interest rates to remain low. However this doesn't help savers. Banks are still not lending to individuals and small businesses, because there has been no pressure put on them to do so. So investment firms (banks) instead invest in commodities like oil, energy, food and gold raising the prices on necessities because they want a safe bet for good returns on their investment. Who doesn't need food? Or energy?
The FED is doing this to try to spur the economy and fight deflation (a real risk) but they cant force banks to lend.
The right argues against forcing banks to lend as they fear it would be big government telling business what to do. They also fight direct employment ideas like a public works program because (it would work) they think it's too socialist. (Even tho it worked before) And they just spent the past year freaking out over the deficit but now say that going in debt to give the already wealthy a tax break will spur the economy. :crazy:
I can't keep up.

[patrice]

6. Thanks for this. We have gone through the Looking Glass. I'm kind of shocked by people

yelling for Middle Class Tax Cuts, when we've been yelling about Tax Cuts in general for quite some time now. And it's just not a strong debating position to tell someone else that it's wrong, "but I get to do it anyway", especially when there doesn't appear to be any rational reason for enabling the thing that caused so much of our difficulties in the first place.

HYPOCRISY

puts us in an indefensible position. And taking steps to deal with the deficit puts us on the high road. It makes us address the necessities, instead of wasting our wealth and it makes our bond rating look slightly better, doesn't it?

[patrice]

3. I am against propping up a corrupt, tax cut/subsidy dependent, economy with my tax dollars.

I would prefer that my taxes be invested in SHARED RESOURCES.