Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:00 PM ET, 12/10/2010

Friday question -- open thread

By Jennifer Rubin

Who is the biggest loser, and who is the biggest winner in the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts? For bonus credit, will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring the deal, as is, to the House floor?

On Monday, I'll pick and discuss the most interesting answer. All responses need to be in by 6 p.m. ET on Sunday.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 10, 2010; 4:00 PM ET
Categories:  Friday question  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New foreign affairs player arrives on the scene
Next: Morning Bits


Obama again grabbed defeat from the hands of victory.

Obama could have looked good with this Compromise - instead he reached for the poison of taking too much credit for himself and Obama met with another disaster.

Obama could have given the Republicans more credit - instead it was Obama running to the microphone to be the hero, and to announce an agreement without the Republicans there sharing the spotlight with him.

Obama could have included the democrats on the Hill in the deal - apparently they knew little of the negotiations or the reasoning for the deal. This is a disaster again for Obama.

Obama blew it again. It is his inexperience and lack of qualifications which is hurting the nation ... again. Hopefully the liberals have learned this time experience matters, qualifications matter. Pushing Obama on this nation was just wrong. Now we are all paying the price for having someone in there who simply should not be there.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 10, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

It's a bit premature for this question. Maybe the question should be,Who are the winners and losers if it fails to pass/if it does pass?
It might be next year before this or a similiar bill passes or possibly fails. Look to "Ayn"Rand Paul for the spoiler in the Senate.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 10, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The winner continues to be China. As long as the U.S. is financially beholden to it, our leaders have no leverage over the Chinese government's abuses.

Which in turn makes the immediate losers South Korea, dissidents, and Sudanese opposition.
And the long term losers any American who is not in a government sanctioned union.

Posted by: raphael1 | December 10, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

If the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts passes essentially as agreed upon, I think the biggest winner will be the American worker who is currently jobless, because despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the extension is the jobless American's best real hope.

The biggest loser will continue to be Nancy Pelosi. Her stubborn clinging to leftist economic mythology will convince a few more recalcitrants, if in fact there are any left who are not completely and hopelessly divorced from reality, that socialistic ideas never worked, are not working now, and will never work, no matter how many quadrillions of dollars are wasted on this mythology.

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 10, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Who is the biggest loser, and who is the biggest winner in the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts? For bonus credit, will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring the deal, as is, to the House floor?

Dear Jennifer,
Love those bonuses so I will deal with the Pelosi question first:

Who cares?

The biggest winner is that Peter Rabbit President who bemoaned his hostage status and begged and pleaded with a befuddled Republican gang of inept Senators not to throw him iin that nasty ol' Briar Patch...throw him they did to the tune of a nearly one trillion buck stimulous package which will of course greatly aid and abet his flimsy re-election chances....(looking better every day) return for ??? Gimmeabreak, in return for next to nothing plus bundles for the ethanol scoundrels...

The biggest loser? The answer begs the question: We the People..

Best Regards,
Mike Bee

Posted by: mikebee1 | December 10, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Who is the biggest loser, and who is the biggest winner in the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts? For bonus credit, will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring the deal, as is, to the House floor?

Dear Jennifer,
Love those bonuses so I will deal with the Pelosi question first:

Who cares?

The biggest winner is that Peter Rabbit President who bemoaned his hostage status and begged and pleaded with a befuddled Republican gang of inept Senators not to throw him iin that nasty ol' Briar Patch...throw him they did to the tune of a nearly one trillion buck stimulous package which will of course greatly aid and abet his flimsy re-election chances....(looking better every day) return for ??? Gimmeabreak, in return for next to nothing plus bundles for the ethanol scoundrels...

The biggest loser? The answer begs the question: We the People..

Best Regards,
Mike Bee

Posted by: mikebee1 | December 10, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Warren Buffett is the big loser because he advocated for expiration of the lower tax rates. Now that the his position has been defeated, let's see if he donates his share of the cuts to the US Govt. Me thinks, "Unlikely."

The big winner: Any person who is working hard in this economy and, because of his/her commitment, will move into the "wealthy" category next year for the first time. Just Desserts.

Posted by: DrBerkeley | December 10, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The American people are the biggest winners here. We get an opportunity to see the horse trading that goes on in DC with our money.

We should be appalled and games like we've witnessed this week can help fuel the flames of the revolt needed here. We have to bring the government, and its permanent ruling class to heel. Or we will wear the yoke of despotism, just as Machievlli warns.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 10, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Short term, Obama is the biggest loser. He turned what was a great opportunity to re-brand his administration as centrist into an angry, whiny capitulation to "hostage-takers" that offended everyone. I doubt he helped himself with independents, and he certainly alienated his class-warrior base.

Long term, Obama could benefit from not raising taxes and further burdening an already struggling economy.

The Republicans could emerge as the biggest losers if they allow the Dems to lard up the Bush tax rate extension with subsidies and other spending for their pet constituencies, or with such as Harry Reid's online gambling provision for the casino bosses. The tea party will turn on Republicans with a vengeance if they allow the usual pork.

Nancy is about to become entirely irrelevant. It wouldn't surprise me if she keeps the compromise from coming to a vote in the House. She would look really good to her base and she might not mind seeing Obama embarrassed. Most likely, she'll lard the bill up with pet provisions and see if the Republicans walk away. I hope they do.

Posted by: eoniii | December 10, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

eonii wrote:

"The tea party will turn on Republicans with a vengeance if they allow the usual pork."

The Tea Party became irrelevant the moment the elction was over, along with other brief flirtations of the Republican Party such as deficit reduction!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 10, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The biggest winner is the American people who voted for practical politics.. The biggest losers are both extreme wings of the political spectrum.

As Max Weber might say if he were a columnist at the Post,

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. Obama and the Republicans have listened to the voters and embraced an ethic of responsibility vs. an ethic of ultimate ends. t is immensely moving when a mature man--no matter whether old or young in years--is aware of a responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and really feels such responsibility with heart and soul. He then acts by following an ethic of responsibility and somewhere he reaches the point where he says: 'Here I stand; I can do no other.' That is something genuinely human and moving. And every one of us who is not spiritually dead must realize the possibility of finding himself at some time in that position. But then he blew it with that disastrous Tuesday press conference!

Posted by: gilliesproust | December 10, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

A few posters today started on the topic of whether the Compromise package was a stimulus or not.

The payroll tax holiday sure looks like an attempt at a stimulus.

I'm in favor of the extension of unemployment benefits - so let's put that aside.

The question is this: is that kind of stimulus - which distributes small amounts of money to millions of people EFFECTIVE in spurring the Economy ????

Obviously, Obama, with is "class struggle" analysis likes this kind of stimulus - Obama doesn't want to give the money to rich - he would prefer to give it to the Middle Class.

However - job creation is business-based. Would it not make more sense to TARGET tax cuts and TARGET tax incentives for job creation???

In the 1980s, investiment in equipment and plant was deemed to be job-creating as well, so tax incentives were created for those investments as well.

Obviously, with banks in the situation they are, it may not be such an easy idea to have businesses borrow money to get the tax incentives and thus spur job creation - however that is the direction of the approach.


Unfortunately, we have the Free Trade deals, which cause much of the money in a broad-based case distribution to be spent on foreign goods - which defeats the whole purpose.

The US ends up borrowing the money again to finance a trade deficit. That is NOT a good idea.


Honestly, what we have at hand is something CURIOUS

We have an old sunset provision which was designed to produce an ACCOUNTING TRICK - and that is NOW DRIVING ECONOMIC POLICY.

This is insanity at its worst.

Think about how we got into this Compromise - and how we got into this fight -


We aren't getting that from Obama - this Compromise bill which adds a Trillion dollars to the debt - QUESTIONABLE AT BEST.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 10, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

At this point, I rather have a discussion as to whether this Compromise bill is the best direction to go from an Economic Standpoint.

Everyone is arguing about the right and the left - WHAT ABOUT what is the best course of action to get the Economy back into a Sound Recovery.

It is a good point, the tax cuts discussion started as a sunset provision - put into Bush's bill so that is could sound less expensive - so this ENTIRE THING started as a DESIRE FOR A TALKING POINT.


Now, we have real issues - how will each of these tax cut provisions help the recovery, help Economic Growth and Help Job Creation.

And I don't mean some talking points - I mean real Economic Growth.

The "Leakage Issue" - money which is leaking out of the country to stimulate other economies, like China - is real, important and SERIOUS.

We can not borrow our way out of this - we are in an Obama Debt Spiral which we have to break out of.

Adding a Trillion dollars to the debt right now might not be such a good idea.

The idea that we now have two "sides" in Washington, each vying for their piece of the pie is ridiculous and silly. It is placing a "class warfare" analysis on top of a serious policy discussion. And it has the potential to create a false sense of satisfaction from bad economic policies.

The HIGHEST good right now has to be how are we getting the Economy moving again - NOT any of the crap Obama has been pushing us.

And that is what is wrong with the Compromise - the motivations are all off in a never-never land.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 10, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The tax holiday - good Economics ???

Obviously it is wrong to look at these bar graphs - and focus entirely on an "us vs. them" analysis and leave it at that.

The Question is: what is the best course for an Economic Recovery? The problem is that Obama sees EVERY STIMULUS as some sort of government-give-away - in which each interest group has to get their slice of the pie.

Sort of like affirmative action for stimulus.

However what actually happens is the stimulus gets DILUTED AND DIVERTED. The stimulus dollars, when sent in the wrong direction, lose their "mulitiplier effect."

We are getting stimulus, but it isn't working the way it should.

Again, Obama seems to be doing the same wrong thing again: distributing small amounts of stimulus among millions of people and hoping that the Economic Multiplier works itself out.

Actually, this is the WORST Economic policy - because it borrows, and much of that money leaks to China and other foreign nations. We are borrowing to stimulate their factories - that is ridiculous. Let China borrow to stimulate their own factories.

If money is going to be borrowed, China has to do its fair share - and borrow to purchase an equal amount of ADDITIONAL US goods - that would be proper compensation.


In this way, Obama's original stimulus was HYJACKED by democratic interest groups and the Economy never got the stimulus.

Obama also gave small amounts to millions of people - amounts that probably did little to affect their spending.

So, these stimulus programs are flawed - and the negatives of borrowing are there. If the nation has to borrow, it should get the "biggest bang for the buck" it can. It is that simple.


With that reasoning, Obama's "tax holiday" is not really such a good idea - no matter which bar graph it is on.

It is a horrible idea to RAISE taxes on anyone right now - and despite Obama's rhetoric, and the democrats SCREAMING that they want to raise taxes, it is the wrong thing to do for the Economy right now.


This package - and the display this week in Washington - is NOT good Economic Policy -


This week has been completely irrational - led by Obama - and not led by sound Economic reasoning.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 10, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse


When you're off your meds, you can be a real thread killer!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 10, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I realize the above postings have been long - however today some people did attempt to have a reasoned discussion on the Compromise package.

I think the individual pieces should be evaluated to determine how much they help Economic Recovery.

Turning this analysis into "us vs. them" is silly and says little about Economic Recovery.

This is where I stand:

- Keep the unemployment benefits for a year

- Keep the Equipment expensing because it is targeted for jobs growth and is stimulative

- the democrats are wrong - the Estate tax is something for their side. The only people the estate tax applies to are those who do not do estate planning - a nuance lost this week - Trash the Estate tax completely - make it ZERO like they agreed 10 years ago. The Estate tax was meant to be gone forever.

- Get rid of the "Clinton Temporary Surcharge" I'm sure many democrats will be HORRIFIED to find out that their outcry this week was largely about something which was meant to be Temporaty - the "Clinton Temporary Surcharge"

- The Real Bush tax cut for the upper tax bracket was only to 35% from 36% - Put it back at 36% and be done with this discussion - Put some extra money in the treasury.


This is a REASONABLE TAX PACKAGE which would only cost 150 Billion

Instead of 350 Billion

That is 22 Billion for the Equipment expensing

56 Billion for the unemployment

and 71 Billion for tax cuts

Eliminate the Estate tax completely, get rid of the Tax holiday, and get rid of the other taxes like the ethanol subsidy which everyone agrees should go.


That is a reasonable package, less expensive and more focused on ECONOMIC GROWTH.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

The whole deal is evolving (or devolving in my view) right now, so it's hard to say for sure who is the biggest winner.

My guess is President Obama wins. Here is why:

1. He finally has taken the opportunity to flip the bird to his far left base, which is essential to his reelection. Obama knows they will scream now, but they'll support him in 2012. He is the only left wing game in town for president - any Dem challenger to him is doomed because blacks will not turn out to vote for another Democrat in 11/2012. Winner: Obama.

2. Obama has made it clear he hates extending all the tax rates. Maybe some of that is a show for his base? But I bet he knows this whole tax deal will stimulate growth, probably a good deal more than the 'stimulus.' So the economy gets a nice bump heading into 2012. Winner: Obama.

3. He knew I'm sure that the 'final' tax deal negotiated with the GOP was anything but. He knew it would get loaded with lard, and that process continues as I write this. Winner: Obama, lover of government spending and pork.

All that said, Obama has taken one strange path to victory this week. Attacking both the people he made the deal with - the GOP - and the people he needs to win - his left wing base - in a press conference? That defies logic.

Posted by: jmpickett | December 11, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Two Rands in Congress,ALLRIGHT:
Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor (VIDEO)
First Posted: 12-10-10 12:22 PM | Updated: 12-10-10 01:23 PM

Posted by: rcaruth | December 11, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

As of this writing, there is no’deal’ or at least no done deal. For me, it’s way too early to declare the winners or losers.

Even after this Congress adjourns and the new one opens for business it’ll be too early. Whatever deal eventually emerges, we won’t know its impact on the economy for at least a year. As for the political consequences, what’s happening now is simply batting practice for the next two years. The game’s just beginning, not ending.

FWIW, I assume the outgoing House Speaker will attempt to put her mark on the bill, even if only as a symbolic gesture.

Posted by: MsJS | December 11, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I'll go with Dr. Krauthammer's opinion on this one,no one that supports this bill can call themselves a fiscal conservative. Here are 472 comments,most of which agree with Dr K.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 11, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The biggest immediate loser is the Tea Party. They thought their status had been elevated to folk-hero stature and that the ideas of small government and drastic budget cutting would be all the rage. Today they should begin to understand that nobody is serious about budget cutting, and that third-parties and psuedo third-parties all throughout American history become irrelevant as soon as the election is over. This is obviously because they have no cohesive organizational unit, and more importantly no continuing cash flow that makes them a player in governing.

If the President is expecting this pacakage to bring unemploymnet down below 9% then he is an unfortunate loser as well.

Very little changes from Dec 31st to Jan 1st. A few more dollars for indivduals in less payroll taxes, a business tax credit moved up calendar wise for businesses. VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY IN PLACE! (estate taxes are a separate category entirely)

To call this stimulative, you have to judge it against some black hole where we would have supposedly fallen. Rick Santelli had an apt analogy for the package. He said it's like stepping off a curb and not getting hit by the passing bus. It's great that you didn't die, but nothing else has changed in your life.

Nothing else has changed in the economy. We have already been in a jobless recovery for going on a year now, with rising GDP. These EXACT same policies did not stimulate employment to any degree over the last year plus. That will not change on Jan 1st.

I already know that someone will say policy "certainty" is good. That's a faith-based argument that has no real world counter factual.

I compare this to the 21st birthday party of a friend many years ago. He had gotten sloppy drunk while waiting to watch the first free tv replay of the classic Holmes-Norton title fight, won by Holmes. Now, as we were carrying him, a Norton fan, home supported under each arm; he was exhorting us to go faster so he wouldn't miss the fight.

We took the logical stand that what did it matter because he already knew his fighter had lost. He replied with a clarity that only drunks can muster "Yeah, but you'd (perform an embarassing bodily function on yourself) if Norton won on the replay!"

I think of that quote when somebody tells me that something which was done to a definitive outcome one time, is expected to have the total opposite outcome on it's replay! That's where we begin on January 1st.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 11, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

If the President is expecting this pacakage to bring unemploymnet down below 9% then he is an unfortunate loser as well

Absolutely correct,since the "REAL" unemployment is above 20%.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 11, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The Biggest Loser in all this is President Obama. This policy is more of the same incoherent economic policy that has bedeviled his administration from the beginning. If his original stimulus had succeeded he would not be in the position that he is today. But he didn't make matters better for himself because he still clings to the notion of stimulus, i.e. the government can provide temporary boosts to create long-term prosperity. Its a fallacy and its being exposed as ineffectual and wasteful. Another $400 billion dollars of deficit spending down the drain with nothing to show for it but high unemployment, anemic economic growth, and potential inflation. What will happen is exactly what Paul Krugman noted in his column--economic growth that eventually fizzles because of the temporary nature of the stimulus. The payroll holicay is only for a year. The Bush tax cuts extension is only for 2 years. Unemployment insurance is at the same time extented to prolong joblessness. This is incoherent policy. For the GOP the extension of the Bush tax cuts by a Democratic president has already accomplished their aim--it has thrown the opposition in complete dissaray.

The Biggest Winner is Sarah Palin. I might as well cut to the chase, because obviously if Obama is the biggest loser and this is going to be his biggest legislative "accomplishment" then the GOP nominee stands to benefit. Palin in particular benefits, because the Tea Party Movement will be disenchanted with the deficit spending incurred due to this package. And they will be more incensed if Obama refuses to acede to any spending cuts aside from those he's signaled he would do. Indeed, he is likely to be obstinate about cuts to government spending because of the seemingly unholy concession on the Bush Tax cuts. This will enrage the Tea Party, who will take their frustrations out in the GOP primaries as they did in 2010. And who is their champion?

Posted by: stevendufresne | December 11, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

stevendufresne,"This is incoherent policy."

Absolutely,but NO ONE from any party is going to fix anything,until the underlying cause of the mess is fixed,which is our monetary/currency system. And unfortunately,to fix it is a LONG TERM project,because our entire fiscal/monetary system has to be dismantled&replaced. We can't repair it,we can only replace it. Facts always trump opinions that are not consistent with the facts,and no politician in the short term DARES deal with thesew facts.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 11, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

@RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 12:10 AM: "I realize the above postings have been long - however today some people did attempt to have a reasoned discussion on the Compromise package."

It is not the length of your postings that is objectionable; it's the inappropriateness for this particular thread.

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 11, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

HenriLeGrand | December 11, 2010 3:17 PM

Well, we are talking about the tax cut deal - and whether it makes sense or not.

The "stimulus" aspects are not going to have the intended effects.

And the borrowing is way off the deep end.

If you don't think that isn't appropriate to point out, sorry.

The truth is - most of this package - and the economic effects of the "tax holiday" were sprung on everyone Monday afternoon - no one has had time to digest any of it - and properly evaluate any of its effectiveness on the Economic Recovery.

And - the truth is the package borrows too much and helps the Economy way too little.

AND - this is an OPEN THREAD.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse


In my reading I came across the below passage written by Ignatius Donnelly about 120 years ago in the hard money vs. greenback controversy. As you and I are on opposite sides in this particular area, I thought you might at least appreciate the literary work of another time in which people actually were informed and involved in the sources and backing of their currency.

"This is a picture of the world of to-day, bound in the silly superstition of some prehistoric nation (gold). But this is not all. Every decrease in the quantity, actual or relative, of gold and silver increases the purchasing power of the dollars made out of them; and the dollar becomes the equivalent for a larger amount of the labor of man and his productions. This makes the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. The iron band (hard currency) is displacing the organs of life. As the dollar rises in value, man sinks. Hence the decrease in wages; the increase in the power of wealth; the luxury of the few; the misery of the many."

Posted by: 54465446 | December 11, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"misery of the many"

This explains Obama's view of the world.

When Obama sees a few in misery, he believes the way to make things equal is to pursue policies which will create the "misery of the many."


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't know who the biggest loser will be, but the biggest winner is clear: George W. Bush.

His successor -- the anti-Bush -- has spent the last five years assailing Bush's economic policies. This week, he endorsed a continuation of the signature component of that same economic policy.

Bush has made clear he's not terribly concerned about his reputation today, but you have to think that somewhere, George W. Bush is smiling. The irony is delicious.

Posted by: wagthedog2 | December 11, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

The biggest winner is the unemployed. At least they get a little peace of mind over the holidays. If the extension actually helps encourage new hiring, even better. The unemployed are due a little luck.

The losers - liberal academic economists like Krugman and Reich. Obama has signed off on the tax cuts and sold it as a stimulus plan. The political Left has abandoned the Keynsian "increase spending / increase taxes" worldview. Both Krugman and Reich will continue to argue their viewpoints to the faithful reading HuffPo and the NYT, as opposed to the real decision makers in Washington. Their prescriptions came close to being actual policy; now they are just another academic exercise.

Bonus question:

Nancy will try and get a bone regarding increasing the estate level taxation. However she knows that the deal can only get worse if she kicks it to the next Congress. The Left already has been working the narrative that they really got the better of the deal. This will give her the cover to go along with it.

Posted by: sold2u | December 11, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse


Don't look now, but your obsession is showing!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 11, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I just think it is not the correct way to do things : Spring a $112 Billion of tax cuts of Obama's tax holiday on the country on Monday afternoon - and act like it is a complete "done-deal."

Obama thinks that no one in the nation is entitled to evaluate this $112 Billion - to see if it is good for the recovery, or whether it will even spur job creation.

NO - instead Obama thinks it is a good idea to balance out the SOCIALIST ideas in his own head about the upper tax bracket - WITHOUT regard for how the nation is going to pay back the $112 Billion which will be missing from the Social Security Trust Fund.

In addition, Obama's tax holiday will take an aditional $112 Billion from the capital markets - money that should be utilized for real-time investments in the long-term growth of the economy.

Instead of these investment dollars being directed toward the long-term growth of the Economy, much of this money will be spent on foreign imports - making our trade deficit WORSE.

Did Obama even have economists look at this idea first, or did he just throw it in over last weekend???

Seriously, this tax holiday may do MORE HARM TO THE ECONOMY THAN GOOD. It has to be closely analyzed.

The idea that Obama thinks he is going to make an agreement with a few Senators, leave out the rest of Congress, and leave out the nation discussing this idea AT ALL, is just OFFENSIVE TO DEMOCRACY.

But, hey, it's Obama and just about everything he does makes no sense.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse


I guess at first, I thought this Compromise package was a good idea - however over the week I have had second thoughts.

I liked the idea that there finally was a Compromise - and Obama finally had to move toward the middle ground of something.

Then I started think about the Economic implications of the package - and I started to look at the individual pieces here.

I was startled to realize that a good chunk of this deal was never discussed on Capitol Hill in any meaningful way.

The Social Security tax holiday is just a REPEAT of the parts of the original stimulus plan WHICH DID NOT WORK.

So what good is that???

Obama and the liberals have perverted the idea of stimulus - perverted the idea of Keynsian economics -

A year and a half ago I was convinced that Obama and the democrats were not serious about responding to the Economic Crisis, because so much money was diverted and simply not directed toward what would be EFFECTIVE to the economy.

This is Obama - who obviously has NO IDEA what he is doing - twisting around Keynesian economics to fit his own marxist class stuggle prism.

Apparently the only analysis that means anything to Obama is how many billions to to which income brackets -

That is ridiculous for any rational analysis to respond to an Economic Crisis, or to spur Economic Growth.

It is actually frightening how twisted the motivations appear to be here.

This nation does NOT need any more borrowing - and certainly not directed toward programs which will spur MORE IMPORTS. It will be an OBAMA DEBT SPIRAL.

I hope that more people are thinking about this than me.

I don't even know if Pelosi is going to bring up this package for a vote - OR if it has the votes

350 Billion in ADDITIONAL BORROWING should make people take pause - especially if they aren't rushed into voting like Obama always seems to want to make them do.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama's tax holiday is basically ONLY going to stimulate Chinese factories.

It is that simple.

The US taxpayer will be nailed with the debt and interest for decades and generations - it will ONLY help Chinese factories - and it will do LITTLE FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN THE US.

That is the bottom line.

It is not sound Economic Policy for the US.


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 11, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse


He can't win with you. You would have blamed him for letting the tax cuts expire and you blame him for NOT letting the tax cuts expire!

Don't worry about the Social Security Trust Fund, since there is no such thing in reality anyway. The money is used to mask the size of the deficit as you know. No matter how much or how little goes into it, the obligation of the government to pay out has not changed one dollar.

The government is currently run by the old. You probably can remember 1980 when Reagan was considered too old to run for president by many. Well if he were running for the Senate this year, his age at the time would only make him the 29th oldest Senator. The House is almost as bad.

There's no way all the old voters in this country and the old legislators who run it will ever allow SS payments to go down.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 11, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Framing the question around the term 'Bush era tax cuts' says a great deal about who wins politically. Since Obama ran against Bush era policies and for two years continued to justify almost every aspect of what happened in the past two years as a result of the so-called failed policies of the past [Bush era], he now appears to be embracing the very economic approach he claimed responsible for all our current problems. if the economy begins to strengthen in the aftermath of this compromise, the Republicans can claim credit. If it does not, Obama, as president, is still likely to be held responsible for the persistence of high unemployment.

Posted by: drdivine1 | December 12, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

The big loser is Progressive Liberalism. Their champion, Obama, in both word and deed has now taken up the Conservative cause. Don't raise taxes in a recession, we can't keep spending because we need to get the deficit under control... and so on.
Policy questions have moved from Progressive vs. Conservative to how conservative.

The big winner is Obama. No one will remember his petulance and anger at his press conference. Or his missed opportunity to embrace his partners on this deal to make future bipartisan deals even easier.
All that will be remembered is that Obama got a deal done despite those crazy extremists (all Republicans) and the extreme left wing of his party. And if the economy improves he'll get the credit (see Clinton-welfare reform).

Posted by: jay22 | December 12, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Loser – President Obama – this episode showed that he does not have an economic vision (he seems to be trying anything), does not have a core (letting the tax rates for high income taxpayers continue), is not a leader (not getting party leaders Pelosi or Reid on board), and acted petty, arrogant, un-presidential (the press conference).

Winner – Paul Ryan – this entire debate shows the need for a long-term vision laid out by someone who understands the perilous situation that we are in and can articulate a way out of it.

Posted by: ChrisWoj1 | December 12, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Loser – President Obama – this episode showed that he does not have an economic vision (he seems to be trying anything), does not have a core (letting the tax rates for high income taxpayers continue), is not a leader (not getting party leaders Pelosi or Reid on board), and acted petty, arrogant, un-presidential (the press conference).

Winner – Paul Ryan – this entire debate shows the need for a long-term vision laid out by someone who understands the perilous situation that we are in and can articulate a way out of it.

Posted by: ChrisWoj1 | December 12, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Biggest loser: Obama, for showing again what a petulant, whining character he is.
Biggest winner: Bill Clinton, for giving Obama a lesson in how to argue a hard case to the American public.
As for the substance, the left lost again, on one of their core issues. They'd better get used to it.
I don't think Republicans won much, there's too many Democratic poison pills in the bill.
All the American public got was a compromise that pushed the interminable debate over taxes down the road. That's not really a victory for anyone.
So, on net, Obama and the left lost, Clinton won, and no one else is getting much out of it. Don't believe the economists' multiplier-stimulus babble, they've been so consistently wrong the last decade. Their forecasting models are no better than the climate-change hockey sticks that have been thoroughly demolished. This tax bill will not stimulate anybody to anything positive, but has only provided political entertainment, if you go for that sort of thing.

Posted by: carldahlman | December 12, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The President is the biggest loser. Everyone looks better by comparison: Bill Clinton trying to cajole or persuade; Paul Ryan having a blueprint and a vision; even Mitch McConnell, getting the most bang out of the buck with only 42 Republicans.

The Deal underscores what an infuriatingly annoying man the President really is. How do you crow about a deal for the good of the people, while peevishly attributing it to being the product of unsavory blackmail.

Finally, the class warfare mantra of the left has run its course. Whether it's rants by Sen Sanders or Rep Weiner, Huffpo or Olby, the cult is getting more strident and politically insignificant. The left can't find a primary opponent, but they can self righteously seek the sidelines along with Krugman and Nader.

Hence the biggest winner: conservatism. The posture of the right was potent in a lame duck session. They'll be reinforced with five more Republican Senators and 63 more House members coming next month. They're the conservative cavalry. The poison pills in the deal don't bother me. They just remind the king-making-Independents what is wrong with Washington. Out with the old, in with the new is still in vogue.

Posted by: TheStatistQuo | December 12, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Winners -- Ethanol, biodiesel, alternative energy, and railroads.

Losers -- Voters who believed Republican campaign rhetoric.

Posted by: Inagua1 | December 13, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

We are being played by Harry Reid and amnesty pushers in the Senate... They want you to believe that the DREAM Amnesty Act was defeated last week, but that is far from the truth. The Hill is reporting that the DREAM Amnesty Act is stillmoving forward as part of a "carefully designed strategy"between the House and Senate... "orchestrated" to grant the proposal its greatestshot at success. The fast-evolving processrequired behind-the-scenes scheduling changes;an 11th hour hearing; constant lobbying fromsupporters; and a risky-but-successful showof procedural gymnastics in the Senate -- all aimed at lending momentum to the hot-buttonbill in hopes of enacting it by month's end."

"Carefully designed"... "behind-the-scenes"... "orchestrated"... "procedural gymnastics"... We have already lived this nightmare several times fromthe Obama-Reid-Pelosi machine. The fact is, Reid is workingbehind closed doors to ensure that the House version ofthe DREAM Amnesty Act now makes it to the Senate floorbefore this congressional session ends. Because of the bill's passage in the House, Reid now has the option to bring the House bill to a Senate vote at anytime! ++Your fast action is needed! The DREAM Amnesty Act is nothing more than a pet payback project of Reid that amounts to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. illegally.

Now with a fast shrinking window of opportunity remaining to ram this bill through, Reid and his liberal cronies arescheming for ways to pass this bill. There are a number of Republican and moderate Democratfence-sitters who are either undecided or unannouncedas to their voting positions on the DREAM Act. The votes of these lawmakers could mean the difference inthis amnesty bill, which is why -- during this late hour we are sounding the alarm for grassroots Americans to reach out to these undecideds and unannounced to ensure that YOUR VOICE is heard on this latest Reid amnesty scam! Tell Senators and those sitting on the fence what you thinkof Reid's nightmarish DREAM Amnesty Act proposal email, telephone or visit your Reps to vote it down!

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | December 14, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company