I've come to the conclusion that the tax cuts were an intentional time bomb.

[LLStarks]

*puts on tinfoil hat*

[HughBeaumont]

1. Yer first Rec.

This was legal THEFT, a winner for the corptocracy either way.

McCain wins, they become permanent and the looting, low cost labor trolling continues . . .

Obama wins, the whole shithouse is in flames, but guess who still exists: The Rich Burglars, ever richer while America is ever POORER. He lets them expire and gets painted as an "increaser" because Republican-lovin', Cheeto-eatin' Murka would rather sit on their ass than put 2 + 2 together.

And guess who gets BLAMED for it all. AWWWWWWWWWyeah.

Fuckers.

[ellenfl]

2. no doubt. eom

[dkf]

3. Starve the beast...it's not Tinfoil hat theory. It was deliberate.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast?wasRedirected=true

[LLStarks]

6. You just blew my mind. How can Bush have said that so candidly? nt

[dkf]

9. Oh its been around a lot longer than Bush. That was Reagans baby.

[Warpy]

11. Exactly, it was pure Grover Norquist

a worm tongued slime bucket who was one of Stupid's closest economic advisers.

Small government that doesn't govern, at all, except when it comes to providing a bloated military to guard Empire serves only the rich, and that's what Norquist wanted with every fibre of his rotten soul.

They had to settle for a time limit and they pushed that limit off onto the next administration, hoping the crash wouldn't happen until Stupid was safely out of office and another Stupid had been cheated in, quite possibly his baby brother, who would rubberstamp making the cuts permanent.

They miscalculated.

However, this is why Obama has to dig in his heels over this one. Taxes on the richest need to rise and they need to do so to save this country. That's how high the stakes are.

[dkf]

12. Except we have two deficits...the jobs deficit and the budget deficit.

Fixing the budget deficit right now when we are experiencing a jobs deficit will probably make the jobs situation worse. But so be it if the country supports cutting the deficit as top priority. If we recover, they will stop caring about the deficit and then we won't be able to fix this.

[Warpy]

13. Three deficits, add the trade balance deficit

All three of those come back to people having jobs that allow them to create demand for goods and services and having that demand eventually met here once again.

[dkf]

14. How does the trade deficit get fixed with the jobs situation?

Isn't that more dependent on what people prefer to buy? Unless the fixed costs are for example oil and an increasing economy includes a more even ratio of "luxuries".

[Warpy]

15. What part of "demand for goods and services met locally"

did you misunderstand? Obviously, the whole thrust of any jobs program should be dedicated to creating the infrastructure the next round of manufacturing will be built upon.

After all, all the jobs we exported rely on expensive fossil fuel technology to run, something that will become less and less cost effective as the oil runs out, along with the cost effectiveness of transporting goods around the planet to point of sale.

Remember, the government created the net and that started the computer boom. Damned few of us would have computers had the net not been there. They'd have been expensive indulgences for rich men to use to track their wealth.

Nothing will happen without infrastructure jobs except a continued race to the bottom as wealth continues to concentrate and 95% of us are declared superfluous and left to starve.

[dkf]

17. Ah, demand met locally. Through trade policy you mean? Do we have the leverage

To cut off trade with our partners considering the debt they own?

[kentuck]

20. "...will probably make the jobs situation worse."

Perhaps showing progress on the budget deficits might help the jobs deficit??

[ThinkerFeeler]

4. Of course!

The conservative plan to drown government in a bathtub is progressing well. States are slashing programs to deal with deficits, and Republicans have convinced tens of millions of Americans that out-of-control government spending by liberals is the cause of their woes.

[Orrex]

5. For decades, most Republican policies have been that sort of time bomb.

They gamble--successfully--that the disastrous results of their fiscal idiocy won't see the light of day for at least one or two Presidential terms, by which time a Democrat will have taken office or else the Congress will be under Democratic control.

So when the policy explodes and spreads its bullshit everywhere, they can blame the Democrats. "It would have worked if President Democrat hadn't undermined the policy," etc.

Alternatively, if the economy rebounds under the Democrat in spite of the Republican policies, then Republicans (including the MSM) will give the Republican policies full credit for the recovery. To this day Republicans claim that the economic growth under Clinton was the direct result of Reaganomics, and the media never even clears its throat in protest.

The basic rule is this:

The President has no power to affect the health of the economy unless:
A. The economy is strong and the President is a Republican

or

B. The economy is weak and the President is a Democrat


The current tax-break snafu is entirely in line with this sort of Republican strategy.

[Bitwit1234]

7. You just figuring that out. Why do you think the republicans

say they would compromise to extend it for two years...say 2012.

[blondeatlast]

8. No doubt in my mind. nt

[tularetom]

10. Was nominating a guaranteed loser pres candidate in 08 part of that plan

Because if the republicans had won the presidency the crap would have hit the fan on their watch.

Maybe they were concerned that as piss poor a candidate as McCain was, he wasn't quite shitty enough, and a lot of rednecks would have voted against the black guy, so they stuck grandpa with the idiot Palin to guarantee that Obama would win, and have to deal with a ration of crap for "raising taxes".

Of course they didn't really have to nominate such a weak candidate. After 8 years of cheney/bush fuckups, no republican actually had a chance at election. Maybe they could see that coming way back in 2001 when the first tax cuts were proposed.

Either way, it's pretty diabolical and quite possible.

[Swamp Rat]

16. Phase II - Blame the Democrats for everything the GOP did and the problems they caused

Phase I - Commit many crimes (theft, war, torture), blame the victims, nominate unelectable candidates to set up other party.



Phase III- Destroy the American system of government; form permanent corporate fiefdoms; rule with iron fist using mercenary police/military forces, surveillance and crowd control technology/weaponry, and a privatized justice and prison system.

This is likely our future if the GOP is not stopped now.

[me b zola]

18. Me too n/t

[Odin2005]

19. Yup, no doubt

[txlibdem]

21. In one sense, yes

But we also must remember that the Democratic senators would not vote yes for this giveaway to the rich so they had to pass it through reconciliation, which limits any legislation to have a 10-year lifespan.

[slackmaster]

22. Giving this a Rec because it makes perfect sense

:hi:

[Festivito]

23. ..alongside the excessive borrowing. /nt