Now my memories not what it used to be :), but I'm pretty sure the problem we had with the economy was the collapse of our banking system.

This "economic uncertainty" stuff sounds more like Republican messaging than anything else. The economy is uncertain so what you need to do is vote for a Republican. Cue the music and voice over: Republicans: We Stand for Certainty!

I have been in security and law enforcement all of my adult life and I have NEVER heard of a private company being able to issue arrest warrants.

Sounds like Barney Fife's "Citizen's Arrest" :)

Haven't heard anything about this yet though, Michale. The Internet says that credit companies are using this tactic to go after debtors.

From all indications, those people getting the tax breaks WON'T spend it.

They will hold onto it because of the uncertainty of the economy..

Which brings us back to the root of the problem..

The economic uncertainty...

On another note...

I read an article where everyone's favorite hero, Al Franken has proposed legislation that would prevent collection agencies from issuing "private party arrest warrants"..

I have been in security and law enforcement all of my adult life and I have NEVER heard of a private company being able to issue arrest warrants.

Have you heard of such a thing???

Michale.....

Giving a tax break to the people who will spend it should give a nice boost to the economy.

But, the way Obama et al has wielded this power is to take over the businesses in question.

This was pretty much at the urging of said businesses. I'm not sure I agree with it but GM seems to be turning around. The banks likewise. And even AIG. And I think the administration's doing the right thing by gradually getting out.

All in all, I think things could be a lot worse. I like to listen to conservative radio - mostly just to see what conservatives are listening to but also because the sports shows are on the same channel. But lately it's gotten so negative that I find myself turning it off or putting on some Hendrix to remind myself that the world isn't such a bad place.

-David

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Michale. Did you call some folks Hitler? ;)

Here's a perfect example of the mentality that I deal with... :D

http://susiemadrak.com/?p=7396&cpage=1#comment-6958

But I think we'd help the economy if we could get money in the hands of folks who will spend it.

I agree...

And yet, the only way that the money WILL get into the hands of those who will spend it, is by creating jobs...

Something the Obama Administration has utterly IGNORED for the last 20 months...

Here's a question for you, Michale. Would you consider breaking up a monopoly an "attack on business"?

Depends on WHY it was being done...

It introduces more competition and makes things better for consumers

It CAN...

But, the way Obama et al has wielded this power is to take over the businesses in question.

This LIMITS consumer choice and makes other businesses less likely to DO business..

This, in turn, leads us to 10% unemployment...

Republicans can't do any worse than Democrats have done...

THAT is the deciding factor in the upcoming elections..

Michale.....

But who decides exactly WHAT is that 98%?

Me personally. I'd go to economists and ask them to help determine the cutoff point. I believe $250k a year is low. But this is just me.

And honestly, I'd have no problem w/ letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Period.

But I think we'd help the economy if we could get money in the hands of folks who will spend it.

And, if the government DID ensure fairness in opportunity, then we would likely not be having this conversation.

I agree. But I'm not sure certain folks (particularly those in charge of our largest corporations) would like what this would look like. It would involve breaking up the monopoly banks. It would involve bringing back things like Glass-Steagall. It would involve introducing more competition and going much further than the watered down financial reform which was passed.

Here's a question for you, Michale. Would you consider breaking up a monopoly an "attack on business"?

It introduces more competition and makes things better for consumers, but of course, a lot of folks in the business world (especially if you owned said monopoly) would consider this an "attack on business".

Cheers
David

Here's my stab: Cutting taxes for 98% of Americans is the best way right now to help the economy.

But who decides exactly WHAT is that 98%??

If you look at how the Obama Administration came up with that "3% of businesses" figure, you can easily see how such percentages can be easily contrived or falsified to fit whatever agenda one wants to put forth...

At this point, I believe, is where government needs to step in and ensure fairness. This is not punishing the successful. This is making sure the entire system works.

And, if the government DID ensure fairness in opportunity, then we would likely not be having this conversation.

But, in essence, the government wants to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.. That is what it has done with it's bailouts, that is what it is doing with it's attacks on business...

This is the type of argument I want to hear from Obama. Good discussion as always! And I'm glad CW hasn't PiNG'd you yet :), whatever that means!

"PiNG"ed is an old diplomatic term (not diplomatic in the sense of being fair, but rather diplomatic in the context of Diplomatic Persons) where an undesirable was declared PERSONA NON GRATA or PNG'ed by host countries and, in essence, banned from the country..

I attended many a PiNG parties in my day.. :D Being PiNG'ed was a badge of honor, especially for us security types.... :D

Which is how I feel about being PiNG'ed from the afore mentioned blogs..

Honored and flattered that they fear me so much that they have to PiNG me.. :D

What was it that Ghandi said??

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you and then you win."

That's how I feel about it.. :D Looks like I have won a lot in the blogs around here.. :D

Michale.....

This point is the point where businesses become monopolies and stifle competition. Think the robber barons of the 20s. Or Microsoft :). Or the banks of 00s.

At this point, I believe, is where government needs to step in and ensure fairness. This is not punishing the successful. This is making sure the entire system works.

This is the type of argument I want to hear from Obama. Good discussion as always! And I'm glad CW hasn't PiNG'd you yet :), whatever that means!

I like a nation of pheasants better!

And I'm honestly not trying to poke fun. This was just a really good typo. Cracked me up. Probably because I was picturing a lot of pheasants in clothes walking around. And sometimes we do seem to act like pheasants :)

The government's job is to enforce equality in opportunity... In other words, you don't rob from the rich and give to the poor.

Ok. Seriously. This is good, Michale. You're doing what I'm arguing Democrats should be doing. Making a moral argument.

Now I'm not saying I agree with your argument. But it is a moral argument and, I believe, the right way to go about things. And the Dems have not made a moral argument for extending the cuts to just 98% of folks.

Here's my stab: Cutting taxes for 98% of Americans is the best way right now to help the economy.

The idea of trickle down theory is that if you give to the rich, the benefits trickle down.

Problem is, it didn't happen. The rich put it in their pockets. Everyone else spent it. But don't believe me, listen to the economists.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

Right now, given our deficits, we should only be spending money where it's going to stimulate the economy. This is with consumers. Tax relief for lower and middle income folks goes straight into the economy.

What Obama should do is say this:

"Given our deficits, we shouldn't be giving out tax breaks to anyone right now. But if we're going to do it, we should do it for those people who are going to spend to help get our economy back on track."

And if Republicans protest based on "equality," I'd let the tax cuts equally expire for everyone.

I know it seems a bit counter-intuitive, Michale. At least on the surface, it sounds like giving tax breaks would help create jobs. But the data shows it doesn't.

Cheers
David

Errr... that would be a nation of PEASANTS.

Michale.....

That is not the government's job.

The government's job is to enforce equality in opportunity...

In other words, you don't rob from the rich and give to the poor.

You insure that the poor has the same opportunity as the rich to create wealth.

Otherwise, we become nothing but a nation of pheasants...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/23/a_nation_of_peasants_107275.html

Michale.....

Basically, he said that Obama is technically doing the right things, but either not making the right case for them or not communicating well enough - a point you emphasize often most recently by talking about Drew Westen.

The moral argument that is still getting out is that Obama's programs are handouts.

What this professor argued for is that he wanted to see a an approach similar to Reagan's. That is, Reagan had to sell tax incentives for the wealthy. A hard thing to sell. So Reagan made the case that the benefits trickle down. (Of course, statistics later showed this didn't happen. But it's a belief that still holds a lot of sway even today.)

What he said was that Obama needs to make the case for "trickle up". If you help the middle class and help the poor, then everyone benefits. It's not the producers that need help this time, but the consumers.

I say this because right now the debate is still being dominated by the Republican moral argument. Basically they're saying it's a "tax hike that penalizes the successful." This is straight out of the trickle down handbook.

I think the Dems gain some traction by separating out the 2% and calling that a tax cut for the rich. But this is a very negative framing. It lacks the foundation of how it will benefit the entire economy.

I believe the approach they should take is to talk about how, right now, we need to get money in the hands of consumers and stimulate demand. This is the best way to long-term ultimately benefit businesses. Give the money to the 98% that will put it back into play. Stats show that the top 2% by and large save this money and don't spend it.

Trickle up theory. (Really liked this idea, but folks here might have a better name for it.)

A few thoughts here on a Friday morning,
David

Really? Wow, guess I shoulda fact-checked that, I always thought oblate spheroid meant football-shaped, but then I wasn't all that good at higher geometry. Conic sections were about as far down that road as I went.

Mea culpa for the mistake, and my apologies.

I don't know, you make a rational case for raising taxes in 2012, but I can guarantee the Republican case will be mostly emotional -- "Dems want to RAISE TAXES!!!" -- without a whole lot of focus on actual details. You do make a good point about severing the two, though, and only the 250K+ ones being up for renewal then. My hope, at this point, is that if Dems actually do push through a compromise, it'll only be one year instead of two. I think 2011 might be a bit better atmosphere, but I could be wrong about even that, I fully admit.

As for the last bit, I really do think the TPers are going to feel betrayal at some point in the next year. I can't guarantee this will be the reason, but their goals are so contradictory, that in one way or another (especially if the GOP takes control of the House), the politicians the TPers send to Washington are bound to disappoint. Perhaps that is optimistic, though, I'll give you that.

:-)

-CW

"Oblate spheroid" is a shape like that of the earth: it bulges out slightly at the equator because of the centrifugal force of its rotation.

The things that people punt, at least in this country, are elongated along one axis. That type of shape is called "prolate spheroid".

The extreme case of "oblate" is "pancake". The extreme case of "prolate" is "stick"

"The compromise plan is supposed to be to extend the tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires for another two years ("until the economy recovers"), and then allow them to expire in 2012. You'll forgive me for saying: "Oh, puh-leeze.""

Dunno, it might work. If they're making the cuts on income below 250k* permanent, but only extending the rest, the part that comes up for renewal is a tax cut that's just for millionaires. That's a lot easier to win than the current fight, not only because it's a millionaires-only issue but because it's during a presidential campaign instead of an off-year campaign.

*We should be sure to point out that billionaires get a tax cut from the permanent part, too. It's just that they only get it on the first 250k.

"The first is the Pentagon budget."

Don't forget the off-budget military spending. The wars were paid for mostly via supplemental appropriations. However, Obama put most of the cost on-budget, so that as the wars start to wind down he can take credit for cutting the deficit by that amount.

"next up is interest payments on our debt. ... We can't slash this, because if we stopped making good on our old debts..."

We can't slash the interest cost from its current level any time soon. But we can make a huge difference in its future course. Long before China actually takes us into receivership, they (and our other creditors) start demanding a higher interest rate to cover the risk of default. As long as we look capable of paying off the current round of bonds, we don't have to pay that risk premium.

"Using numbers before Obama's healthcare reform passed ..."

Using those numbers as the baseline will let us point to another trillion dollars of deficit reduction over a ten-year period.

"But there's a good chance many of them are going to feel a bit of betrayal when they actually see the math, that's my guess."

Are you sure about that? If so, you're an incurable optimist.