Howard Dean and Jerrold Nadler on Face the Nation

[ProSense]

face the Nation transcript (PDF)

<...>

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, are you-- do you advocate letting all these tax cuts run out as it were and having--

HOWARD DEAN (overlapping): No--

BOB SCHIEFFER: --everybody else’s-- everyone’s taxes--

HOWARD DEAN (overlapping): No--

BOB SCHIEFFER: --go up in January?

HOWARD DEAN: I don’t advocate the middle class tax cuts expiring because it-- it really is clear that the middle class is under a lot of stress and every dime you take out of their pockets is a dime that isn’t going to go back into the economy. But ultimately, these tax cuts all of them are going to have to expire at some time and if you don’t do that, you’re-- you’re facing numbers that are unfathomable eight years from now.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, we-- clearly, Congressman Nadler, we’re in the land of poor options here. There’s no-- there’s no question about that. But how can you prevent people’s taxes from going up next year if you don’t come to some compromise with Republicans on this?

REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD NADLER: Well, I think you’re going to have to come to a compromise but this is a bad compromise because as Governor Dean said, it really sacrifices the welfare of the country long term. I would say that the second largest problem we face long term is the long term deficit. The more immediate problem we face is to create more jobs right now and we have to do that, but you can’t do it at the expense of permanentizing these upper end tax cuts and the estate tax cut and jeopardizing social security down the road.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you feel that the President has betrayed his party? Congressman.

REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD NADLER: No. I-- I’m not going to say that President betrayed his party, I think that he probably should’ve stood a-- a little stronger and in-- and-- and-- and not um-- um-- gone along with the-- with what is-- what is the Republican blackmail attempt--

<...>

Easy to say it's a bad deal, but if the middle-class tax cuts are to be extended and that requires compromise, where is the alternative plan?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Which part of 'bad compromise' is confusing to you?

The alternative was success. Lots of ways to do that - but you start by trying.

[ProSense]

2. "The alternative was success."

Where's the alternative? The President isn't the only man in the world. There are 535 members of Congress, and they're all talking and all have the ability to come up with an alternative that will pass. Where is it?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Obama to Congressional Dems: 'stuff it'

Obama purposely shut out all Congressional Dems in making his Chamberlain-esque deal, and has ordered them to take it or leave it. No?

Are you suggesting that Congressional Dems blow off Obama and make their own deal? Really?

[ProSense]

4. So he's making them vote for the plan and preventing them from coming up with an alternative?

He's a powerful man, this President.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Yes.

Are you surprised that the president is powerful? Wow!

[ProSense]

7. "Are you surprised that the president is powerful? Wow!"

You mean he isn't weak?

[Milo_Bloom]

9. His position is powerful...

he is personally weak.

[ProSense]

13. So the position is preventing them from acting?

Oh brother.

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Yes.

[ProSense]

6. "Are you suggesting that Congressional Dems blow off Obama and make their own deal? Really?"

Laughable. What was all the screaming, name calling, cursing and declaring "no deal" about? Grandstanding?

[Milo_Bloom]

8. Reality is ALL the tax cuts should expire now.

It is just not politically popular to say so.

[ProSense]

10. " It is just not politically popular to say so. "

Why?

[Milo_Bloom]

11. For the same reason democrats were against the tax cuts the first time around.

Because people don't like CHANGE.

The first time around, democrats didn't believe the tax cuts would help the economy and most people believe they wouldn't see much impact from the tax cuts at all

"Finally, few Americans expect these proposed tax cuts to make much difference in their own finances. 58 percent think the cuts will not make a significant difference in the amount of money they have after taxes, while 33 percent think they will affect their finances" (see link below)

The first time around people didn't believe these tax cuts helped the economy.

"Looking back, the 2001 tax cuts are not viewed as having been an especially effective economic tool. 63 percent think those tax cuts had no effect on the economy; 19 percent think they were good, and 12 percent think they were bad for the economy." (see link below)


CUT TO: Now.. people are under the impression they are going to lose something significant.. when they really aren't. People NOW think losing the tax cuts they didn't think would help the economy would now have a negative effect on the economy. In the poll linked below 58% thought cutting the deficit would do more for the economy than lowering taxes.

So... 8 years ago when the deficit was MUCH smaller and the debt a fraction of what it is today, people felt cutting the deficit did more the economy than these tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/13/opinion/polls/main553730.shtml

The reason it is not politically popular is because people falsely believe today that getting rid of these wasteful tax cuts will have a negative impact on them... which it really won't.

[ProSense]

12. So it's politically unpopular to say

because people would disagree?

Every economists knows middle class tax cuts are stimulative, and other parts of the package even more so. Why would Howard Dean be afraid to say that this is wrong because it's politically unpopular?

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Ummm. yes.

That is the basic definition of politically unpopular.

This statement is also false. "Every economists knows middle class tax cuts are stimulative"

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tax-cuts-stimulus-2010-9

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/does-middle-class-need-tax-cuts

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/economists-say-tax-cut-deal-wont-dramatically-stimulate-the-economy.php

[ProSense]

17. Your first link is from September. Your second link

is an article asking if the middle class needs tax cuts.

Your third link: "According to progressive economists, it will help, but won't make a huge dent."

It will help.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Your statement was untrue

You said, "Every economists knows middle class tax cuts are stimulative"

I provided links that state otherwise.

Whether they are from September, October or January of 2001 makes no difference. Your statement was false.

[ProSense]

19. No, it wasn't. An article from September has nothing to do with this deal.

Nothing. Is that guy even an economist?

[Milo_Bloom]

20. Sorry, but it is STILL untrue.

You: "Every economists knows middle class tax cuts are stimulative"

I posted an article from a person who "graduated from the London School of Economics" who stated the exact opposite of your claim.

That makes your absolute statement UNTRUE.

When you make a statement that attributes a specific opnion to EVERY ECONOMIST and someone can provide 1 single economist who says the opposite, your statement is untrue.

I could find many many many more if I felt like it.

However, all I needed was ONE to prove that you were spinning out of control.

[ProSense]

21. Wrong, not only is the article from September, but it

does not mention middle class tax cuts, and for all I know this person could be a hack.

Point to where the piece specifically states that middle-class tax cuts are not stimulative.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Why can't you ever admit when you are proven wrong?

You made an ill advised absolute statement that was proven wrong. The fact you may not like the source is meaningless.

This article is about the fact that TAX CUTS ARE NOT STIMULATIVE! PERIOD. Middle class. Business. Low Class. They just don't work!

One of the other articles I posted gets more into WHY they don't work and it has to do with the fact that the money is spread out over such a long period of time that it doesn't lead to a change in spending habits, which is what you need.

Here's an economist explaining why the payroll cut likely won't stimulate the economy either. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/09/will-a-payroll-tax-cut-stimulate-the-economy.html?cid=6a00d83451b33869e2013486d36e5c970c

[ProSense]

23. Why don't you post actual facts related to the deal or middle-class tax cuts

before dimissing a point as untrue?

You posted a bunch of links, none refuting the point that middle-class tax cuts are stimulative.

In fact, the last link you provided states the deal will help, albeit limited.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. because your statements are UNTRUE

You made the following claim: Every economists knows middle class tax cuts are stimulative, and other parts of the package even more so.

I have now provided you with 2 links from economists.

One talking about tax cuts in general and how THEY DON'T STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. That refutes part 1 of yours statement.

I then gave you ANOTHER link from an economist stating that the payroll tax won't stimulate the economy.


So.. let's break it down.

Every economist doesn't agree that middle class tax cuts are stimulative. FACT. Proven by link #1

There is SIMILARLY NOT UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that other parts of the package are stimulative as well.. as proven by the last link I gave you.

Why keep up the spin when you have been proven wrong??

[jenmito]

16. Jerry Nadler kept saying he thinks the tax cuts for the rich will be "permanentized."

:rofl: