Senate Republicans block tax cut for under $250,000.

Another way of phrasing the "news" is that the Republicans are refusing to authorize a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for all individuals with income under $200,000, and for all couples with income under $250,000, unless the same continuation is also extended for everyone with an income over those figures.

Further, the Republicans have made it clear that they would not authorize a continuation of the existing tax cuts for everyone with income under $1,000,000, unless the same continuation is also extended for everyone with income of $1,000,000 or more.

Seems to me it's pretty clear who the Republicans are most concerned about...

There is no contradiction... You fail to comprehend English grammar,whether intentionally or not.

I haven't portrayed anyone as anything... I just stated the respective positions of the two political parties.

Clearly, the primary difference between their positions on tax cuts involves whether or not to maintain lower tax rates on very high earners (I.e. those who can best afford higher tax rates), or whether to allow the reduced rates to expire for those higher earners.

The Republicans appear to be perfectly willing to allow all of the tax cuts expire for everyone, rather than allowing them to renew for everyone but the most well-to-do.

I'm with aw

In all this talk of tax cuts, seems like nobody towing a party line wants to engage in any discussion on how to solve the country's problems. It's solely talk about burdens and party bias, which in the end is useless w/a growing deficit & out of control entitlement programs

I remember in the 'What Should Obama Do' thread where I was berated for suggesting that he work on a plan to pay down the deficit, or something to that effect. That is where the discourse on American politics has arrived in 2010

I'm with CTK.

While people of both parties have been squabbling over tax reform, the wealthy elites have been sheltering their capital overseas and not paying a cent in taxes. Meantime, Obama has always had the option of signing an Executive Order calling in all the $12 to 20 trillion sheltered overseas in non tax paying accounts. This would eliminate the Republican created deficit, finance the rebuilding of the infrastructuce, and create jobs for everyone. Unfortunately, Obama is too timid to do so. Of course, no Republican is going to do it either as their policies created this tax free harvest for the elites.

While I agree that Obama is too weak to implement such a plan, I do have some questions and comments.

1- where's your source on this? Specifically the fact that Obama was the roadblock or potential catalyst for this, and the means by which the value of said sheltered assets were protected?

2- considering the Dems had control of Congress during the dark chapter of Bush's tenure, and in part enabled the two wars we're in, and continued to exacerbate the problems Bush created w/a Democratic congress & president, how is the current deficit "Republican"?

I grow wearier and wearier of talking politics with people who refuse to speak outside their ideological talking points. ESPECIALLY when they're flat out WRONG. Again, a reflection of the hellhole American political discourse has descended into in this day and age.

I agree with the sentiment concerning the long-term viability of our public finances. But spending can (and should) increase over the next few years (perhaps 8 to 12 quarters), while the job market stabalizes. I believe that, should we provide a credible plan, the global investor community knows we can implement it. After all, during the Clinton Administration, we were able to pay down debt and run surplusses.

Moreover, if we've already gone beyond what is necessary for short term spending, then we would likely see either interest rates rise or our currency crash, neither of which has happened. In fact, as global troubles persist, you continue to see a flight to safety in the U.S. Treasury market. I see no sign of investor skepticism. Besides, our real problems are long-term entitlements, not short-term spending. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and military spending are where the real cuts need to happen. With the exception of the military, those happen to be major long-term projects requiring reduced benefits over perhaps a 100 year period (thereby reducing the present value cost of our "off-balance sheet" obligations, which the market fully recognizes). None of these cuts can possibly happen tomorrow.

As for party (or political) culpabilty, both parties are responsible, but certainly the republican stance is more than a little hypocritical. To wit:

- While in control of the White House and both branches of congress, they passed the single largest increase in entitlement spending for drug coverage to seniors.

- This while not fully recognizing costs for two wars, one of which they forcefully, unnecessarily, and recklessly pushed the nation into (that was not the Dems. Moreover, Republicans tried to do this on the cheap, putting an underprepared military into a field of conflict).

- Finally, a large part of current deficits is due to reduced tax receipts, because millions upon millions of Americans are out of work. This financial disaster might have been mitigated (but not eliminated) if the Bush Administration simply enforced its regulatory authority. Instead, it chose to "starve the beast," and reduce federal regulators to a something akin to a modern Keystone Cops. While I would acknowledge that Dems, especially during the Clinton Admin, were enamored with market mechanisms (especially Larry Summers--who mitigated any effort at regulating credit default swaps), no party was more bent on deflating the powers of the U.S. Gov regulators. And then they they chastise them for being incompetent.

Personally, I have no confidence in republican "plans" (with the exception of Paul Ryan) to improve the national economy and fiscal sanity.

Excellent post. Largely agree, and I expect nothing to change, under either party.

Yup, I expect to be having this conversation until we have a currency crash and/or cost of borrrowing dramatically rise ....and then we will blame the party that just left office, which ever party it might be.

I'm going to ramble a bit: Investors flock to treasury because they are unsure of the solvency of other entities, like nations, companies, and individuals. On the contrary, they are absolutely certain that the U.S. government will remain solvent, and pay their money back. 10 year treasuries are currently yielding less than 3%. That is a vote of confidence. Treasuries remain the gold standard, THE risk free security.

The job market is not likely to recover within the near term no matter what public policy is in place (higher taxes, lower taxes, more regulation, less regulation, more stimulus, less stimulus). This is a continuation of the type of jobless recoveries we've seen since the 1990 recession.

Given the severity of this recession, this is all the more reason to continue with a limited, targeted stimulus package. Eventually the job market will recover, and we'll all be better off with people who have at least been maintaining their skills. And a recovery will happen sooner with more people earning money and spending, which will give confidence to businesses that they can generate revenue with some certainty.

Business in general have shown they like government intervention. They just want it when it suits them (i.e. sends them money, gives a competitive advantage, or bails them out). For years Wall St. would say, "less government regulation," "less government taxes," "less government, less government, less government." But they have no trouble with the government negotiating on their behalf for trade rights, protecting their property rights, and when they get into trouble, they yell "HELP!" Same for traditional manufacturing, commodities producers, drug manufacturers, and other industries. Then they all want to tell the government to get out of the way. Just a few years ago, I was listening to some Wall Street MDs tell me how only the government can give the market certainty (the topic was the housing market, and the context was for the government to assume all downside risk). Now they say the government is creating uncertainty. But, all businesses operate under uncertainty (it's par for the course), and I'm not sure how a marginal tax rate change of 3% or other changes to regulation, taxes, or spending is any different than usual. What is unusual is the level of unemployment and weakness in the economy. And this is a reason businesses don't want to invest (because of depressed spending).

What they (businesses and affluent individuals) are certain of, is that they don't want to pay more in taxes or compliance. Hmmm. I guess it's okay for everyone else to shoulder that burden.

Money can be printed without consequence as long as people have faith in the value of the currency. When that faith is eroded, we'll see a structural (and painful) change. For the moment, I don't see a massive exodus of assets. I see otherwise (low treasury yields, relative stability in currency, etc). Every currency has a weakness (gold has been debased for millenia). I don't see our currency's weakness as being to common (inflationary--or too much money). Their is so much capacity in the real economy (many factories are sitting idle, and many, many people are unemployed). That is the weakness. Our money is backed by our productivity. And our macro-economy is not productive enough. As in the great depression, the fed is battling a contraction of the money supply (which makes people feel less wealthy, and reluctant to spend, and is thus deflationary). Banks caused this problem. When banks can't (or won't) lend, money supply contracts. This is why the fed is printing. Because we will continue to reduce debt (the private sector, that is), there will remain a drag on the economy (because of, in aggregate, a reduction in the amount of money in circulation). So the fed prints.

I assume you're referring to our "economic stimulus package" which was woefully inadequate?

I'm going to ask two questions I hope you don't take as me being rude or sarcastic as I'm genuinely curious.

1. Do you understand where the US Govt's money comes from?

2. Do you understand the consequence of our gov't spending more than it takes in indefinitely?

If you can answer the two questions with a convincing "yes", pls explain how you felt the stimulus was inadequate and what you would have done differently.

Fair enough

1- where's your source on this? Specifically the fact that Obama was the roadblock or potential catalyst for this, and the means by which the value of said sheltered assets were protected?

2- considering the Dems had control of Congress during the dark chapter of Bush's tenure, and in part enabled the two wars we're in, and continued to exacerbate the problems Bush created w/a Democratic congress & president, how is the current deficit "Republican"?

1) There are several sources throughout the Internet which show that $12-20 trillion has been sheltered overseas. I can give you plenty but will restrict myself to just one:

http://businessagainsttaxhavens.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/TaxHaven.pdf

The Fox network has reported this as well. Thus, while you pay your taxes, the wealthy elites do not. This contrary to the barrage of propaganda you see from the right wing every year n forums such as this one.

80% of the deficit was created under Bush. While it is fashionable and politically correct to blame Democrats, the fact remains that the $10+ trillion deficit we have today was created under Bush.