Yeah. I'd largely agree that Obama got upstaged by Slick Willy Clinton. But, that was classic Clinton. He loves the camera, attention and discussing policy issues with the press. It was so odd, time warp back to the 90s really watching it. Clinton had that aura around him where he captures the room and uses it to his advantage. Obama doesn't have that yet, and he knows it. The he had to go to be with the wife was a lame excuse, I'd agree.

Still, I'm not sure you can make the link that because Clinton was there, Obama was awful and in over his head. I think the President has been doing alright since the election, and the deal was a great strive toward pragmatic approaches. He does has to get his damn party in line.

I also saw where the President may introduce a new tax code next year, which may take several years to implement. I'd be a fan of this if done right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/politics/10tax.html

BGFalcons82;596193 wrote:The more I think about the Bush Tax Cut Extension Act, the more I wish they'd just fail altogether. This Congress was fired last month and when compelled to actually get something done where they both have to work together, they fail. Totally emblematic of this Cogressional version...utter failure. I'm not worried about the tax rates being extended for all because on January 3 the new Congress will indeed get it done, albeit retroactively. I find it both black-humor style funny and sad all at the same time to watch them try one last time to get every morsel, kickback, earmark, payoff, and entitlement-society check for their benefactors back home. This shit has got to stop and we'll be measuring the next Congress on how they git r dun.

I've talked to a few friends who work on tax issues, cause it's not my strong suit. They stated that trying to retroactive a tax code is insanely hard to do and complex and may not be worth all the effort, and implementation will be really hard to do. They said that working the deal out now and then moving to a new tax system in the next year is a much better option.

"Still, I'm not sure you can make the link that because Clinton was there, Obama was awful and in over his head. I think the President has been doing alright since the election, and the deal was a great strive toward pragmatic approaches. He does has to get his damn party in line."

It is awful because Obama is the President, not Bill Clinton. Can one imagine if Reagan was still alive and W pulled a stunt like this - "Hey guys I'll let my pal Ronnie explain why this important piece of legislation is the right move, I need to head out and join Laura at the Cotillion." Ronnie - "Ha Ha Georgie, yes please go". This would be front page news and Stewart/Colbert would get a week's worth of material out of it.

It was incredibly thoughtless. First of all this is a very important issue, it is embarrassing that Americans (especially business owners) don't even know what their taxes will be in a matter of weeks. But another piece of the bill is extending unemployment benefits. How are the millions of Americans unemployed and with expired benefits going to think about the POTUS slipping out to go to a Christmas Party. I'm guessing they won't think highly of it.

I don't know what doing alright means, if frefalling poll numbers, alienating both sides of the political spectrum while offering the middle little, and generally destroying his aura in just two years is doing alright - what does "poorly" mean? The country is in the worst shape in my lifetime and Obama continues to act aloof and distant.

Reagan could not have done that since he was in the last years of his life. But, if it was possible, I think it would be interesting and I would have loved to see it. But, I get your point.
I think it was a reaction to turn the attention away from crazy Sen. Sanders 8 hour delay tactic. Then, it just snowballed from Clinton supporting the tax plan, to Clinton overtaking the whole thing.

I'd admit, Clinton is much better at things than Obama, which is not a surprise. But, I wouldn't say it showed Obama was in over his head. I'd say it was more of he just got upstaged by a former President who is smarter than he is. I think we are disagreeing on different shades of being upstaged.

Well, Americans not knowing their taxes next year is solely on the D's in Congress for not bringing up the issue earlier, forcing the President into the deal. And, I doubt Americans who are are unemployment care what the President does, they are more worried about finding a job and feeding their families. But, I get what you are saying.

ptown_trojans_1;596213 wrote:I've talked to a few friends who work on tax issues, cause it's not my strong suit. They stated that trying to retroactive a tax code is insanely hard to do and complex and may not be worth all the effort, and implementation will be really hard to do. They said that working the deal out now and then moving to a new tax system in the next year is a much better option.

I agree it would be easier to accomplish the extensions now. No doubt about that. While it's harder to retroactively do it...it can be done...and will be done. The AMT is patched every year, sometimes retroactively, because these buffoons sometimes have trouble reading calendars. Somewhat off topic, but still related to taxes, why don't they just shit-can the AMT or change it so that's indexed to inflation since the day it was created back in the early 70's to snare the uber-evil rich? It was a tax change concocted to ensare less than 1% of the population and now it affects almost 30% who would be crippled, if not killed, if they're ever caught in its clutches. I think I just answered my own question as to why they don't fix it...they see all the money they could control should it never be patched. Greed affects everyone.

You know...here's an idea some of you haven't thought of yet

What is similar between now and 1994?? We got our asses kicked,and Bill had to move to the center to get shit done. Obama is trying to do the same thing,maybe he had Bill take over the presser to say, "Hey,you helped me in '94.now you need to help President Obama

Ty Webb;596275 wrote:You know...here's an idea some of you haven't thought of yet

What is similar between now and 1994?? We got our asses kicked,and Bill had to move to the center to get shit done. Obama is trying to do the same thing,maybe he had Bill take over the presser to say, "Hey,you helped me in '94.now you need to help President Obama

I'll agree that politically, 1994 and 2010 are similar. Der Shlickmeister was very cunning and cagey and knew if he wanted to be re-elected, he'd have to change stripes...or appear to do so. I think he's as liberal as they come, but he knew America was not (and is not) a liberal country. So, he took his medicine in the 94 mid-term, learned from it, and moved forward to work with those that opposed him. He got re-elected for a whole host of reasons, the largest being that Bob Dole was the worst Republican candidate of my lifetime. He was nominated because he "deserved it after so many years of service", not because he was the best candidate to win the presidency. But I digress.

Obama is too arrogant, too narcissistic, and too much of an idealogue to move anywhere to the right. He's never shown a proclivity to work with those that oppose him...it's just not the "Chicago way". His idea of working with conservatives is to steamroll, lambaste, impugn, agitate, and use Alinsky tactics on those that don't think like he does. He's out of his league and the Left likely won't let him cave on anything, much like the conservatives railed against Bush when he decided that government should bail out those too big to fail. It will be interesting to watch him flail about as I'm sure he'd like to be re-elected.

BGFalcons82;596304 wrote: Obama is too arrogant, too narcissistic, and too much of an idealogue to move anywhere to the right. He's never shown a proclivity to work with those that oppose him...it's just not the "Chicago way". His idea of working with conservatives is to steamroll, lambaste, impugn, agitate, and use Alinsky tactics on those that don't think like he does. He's out of his league and the Left likely won't let him cave on anything, much like the conservatives railed against Bush when he decided that government should bail out those too big to fail. It will be interesting to watch him flail about as I'm sure he'd like to be re-elected.

Wait, then how do you explain this deal with the R's and giving up his position on the Bush taxcuts?

BGFalcons82;596304 wrote:So, he (Clinton) took his medicine in the 94 mid-term, learned from it, and moved forward to work with those that opposed him. He got re-elected for a whole host of reasons, the largest being that Bob Dole was the worst Republican candidate of my lifetime. He was nominated because he "deserved it after so many years of service", not because he was the best candidate to win the presidency. But I digress.

One could also remove "Dole" and insert "McCain" but I too digress.

BGFalcons82;596304 wrote:Obama is too arrogant, too narcissistic, and too much of an idealogue to move anywhere to the right. He's never shown a proclivity to work with those that oppose him...it's just not the "Chicago way". His idea of working with conservatives is to steamroll, lambaste, impugn, agitate, and use Alinsky tactics on those that don't think like he does. He's out of his league and the Left likely won't let him cave on anything,...

In a sense he already "caved" by realizing that the Dems got their collective asses handed to them this past fall and that to have any hope of having a proactive if not effective presidency in the final two years of his first term, he had to agree to the temporary extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. The difference here is Obama - being the unyielding Chicago leftist - brought Slick Willie in to act as his lightning rod rather than doing the political dirty work himself probably at the advice of the WH staff.

The utter ineptitude of the BHO Administration is breathtaking.

ptown_trojans_1;596314 wrote:Wait, then how do you explain this deal with the R's and giving up his position on the Bush taxcuts?

I answered that for BG.

believer;596327 wrote:I answered that for BG.

You da man, believer!! LOL

I would only add that the inevitabiltity of extending all the tax cuts is a done deal. Me thinks Obama tried to get in front of this and claim he is a pragmatist, say that he's willing to work with R's, and try to be seen as being a part of the coming growth expansion. I'll give him props for F I N A L L Y seeing some daylight, but he is soooo tied to the Left that he will quickly descend back into their grip. Like I said....it's going to be fun to watch him flail about like a fish in a boat. Can he flip himself back into the water or will he be cooked and served with a nice chianti?

believer;596325 wrote:One could also remove "Dole" and insert "McCain" but I too digress.

Funny....In 1994, I was a BIG Jack Kemp fan and liked the ticket for him far more than for BobDole. I thought maybe...Dole would quit the job after one term and let Kemp run in 2000 if he'd won. Big dream THAT was, eh?! In 2008, I liked the VEEP choice far more than McCain and I had the same hopes. Funny how what goes around comes around, eh? Oh well, without Carter, I don't think we would have had Reagan. Without Obama, we might never have seen Christie...but that's for a different thread, eh?!! LOL

BGFalcons82;596329 wrote:You da man, believer!! LOL

I would only add that the inevitabiltity of extending all the tax cuts is a done deal. Me thinks Obama tried to get in front of this and claim he is a pragmatist, say that he's willing to work with R's, and try to be seen as being a part of the coming growth expansion. I'll give him props for F I N A L L Y seeing some daylight, but he is soooo tied to the Left that he will quickly descend back into their grip. Like I said....it's going to be fun to watch him flail about like a fish in a boat. Can he flip himself back into the water or will he be cooked and served with a nice chianti?

writer...you got it!! I left out the fava beans cuz that woulda given it all away. I woulda posted a picture but I suck at posting pix on here.

BGFalcons82;596329 wrote:...but he is soooo tied to the Left that he will quickly descend back into their grip. Like I said....it's going to be fun to watch him flail about like a fish in a boat. Can he flip himself back into the water or will he be cooked and served with a nice Chianti?

Well...He did drop hints that he will do this at the same time he did right thing by backing the tax cuts by saying, "It's tempting to not negotiate with ‘hostage takers,' unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage was the American people."

He was, of course, demonizing those eeeeevil Republicans while ignoring the clear message the American people sent to him last month.

Whether or not BHO flips back into the water or becomes tuna tar tar depends a lot upon how the Republicans conduct business in the next Congress. If they begin to behave like Dems again, you can bet BHO's swagger will return. If the Repubs are successful at holding the political agenda and BHO resists, we might be popping open champagne instead of chianti two years from now.

ptown_trojans_1;596234 wrote:I'd admit, Clinton is much better at things than Obama, which is not a surprise. But, I wouldn't say it showed Obama was in over his head. I'd say it was more of he just got upstaged by a former President who is smarter than he is. I think we are disagreeing on different shades of being upstaged.

I know you're not aware of this, but this is reading to me that you two are in perfect agreement with each other in regards to what "upstaged" means.

You said it yourself: Our President isn't all that smart. He got upstaged.
Period. It's a WASH.

Inclusive in that; THAT's embarrassing.

Article regarding the bill and the UE benefits extension piece (which I mentioned earlier),

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/11/unemployment-benefits-being-held-hostage-by-dems/

Without going too much into the merits of the extension, I agree with the author's opinion that the DEMS would scream bloody murder if the GOP was holding up the extension.

I think the economy is the main thing, and one of the main reasons for arguing for the full extension of Bush's tax cuts was that taxes should not be raised on anybody so long as the economy was struggling. i think there comes a point when the brinkmanship becomes counterproductive. I think you seize the opportunity to build bridges and move forward. Yeah, maybe it's not perfect from a conservative viewpoint, just as it is not from a liberal perspective.... but there comes a point where rigid adherence to principles is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Clinton's main claim to fame was presiding over one of the largest economic expansions in recent history and doing nothing to derail that freight train. Of course, when he left office he handed over a ticking time bomb that had already begun to implode. The roots of the Great Recession can be traced back to the internet bubble and housing mandate of the Clinton era. In his defense, I don't think anyone -except perhaps Greenspan - could have predicted the depth of the damage done or how difficult it would be to climb back out. Those corrective measures basically laid the foundation for the recent financial/housing collapse.

I've had this debate about tax codes before. Everyone wants a simpler tax code and such an idea seems common sense. The problem is the tax code is used for social engineering and business "welfare", and neither is inherently good or bad. I don't see that philosophy ever changing, so regardless of what you do to reduce the code it will inevitably grow necessarily complex. Even if you ignore corporate taxes and just focus on personal income taxes there are a host of issues - what about married couples, what about mortgage deductions, deduction for kids, college tuitions, etc... Much of the code can be boiled down to simply providing incentives and removing/reducing disincentives for "investments" that are productive and beneficial.

And, LOL, "reforming the tax code" is just semantics for "tax increase". I'm guessing they won't be reforming much that affects the middle and lower tax brackets, at least not in any negative way. It's all just a shell game because you aren't going to collect significantly more taxes as a % of GDP. The only way out of this mess is a fiscally responsible budget and tax/economic policy that maximizes growth.

Here's a very simplified version of what the wealthy can do when taxes increase: They sock more money away pre-tax in qualified savings plans and/or deferred income, so they reduce their tax liability and, also, consumption. In periods of lower taxes they do the opposite, although with recent special Roth plans if they were smart they socked away a bunch after-tax to have the same flexibility in retirement to manage taxes on their distributions. The govt can play the shell game and the tax payer can counter with a shell game of their own.

Senate gains cloture on extending the Bush Tax Rates - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/tax-cut-package-faces-senate-test/ Looks like the House won't be able to run around like Chicken Little much longer....time to shut up and vote.

Heard an interesting take I heard earlier today....Most every Clinton-supporter has stated or offered that we should return to Clinton-time tax rates, which is exactly what will happen should the tax rate extension go down, and economic nirvana will return. Interestingly, Der Schlickmeister returned to the Presidency on Friday and said the current Bush Tax Rates should be extended to avoid another recession. Hhmmm.....which is it....his tax rates created growth and economic heaven, or we need to keep smaller rates that he and the Left have railed against for 8 or 9 years? Quite a conundrum for the Dems, eh?

Not really. The argument for mainly keeping the tax cuts is the economy is too fragile to let them expire. He stated if the economy was in better shape, they should expire, but since we are slowly gaining back, it would be near economic suicide to let them expire. It is a different situation today than in the 90s.

ptown_trojans_1;599652 wrote:Not really. The argument for mainly keeping the tax cuts is the economy is too fragile to let them expire. He stated if the economy was in better shape, they should expire, but since we are slowly gaining back, it would be near economic suicide to let them expire. It is a different situation today than in the 90s.

The point is...many on the Left and many posters on OC, believe that higher tax rates are best for the economy and saved our country in the 90's. Even Clinton runs around championing how when he was prez, we had a balanced budget and a growing economy and his tax rates were the best. Now...the same guy is saying lower rates are needed and better than the rates HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR. He isn't named Slick Willie for nuthin!!

BGFalcons82;599659 wrote:The point is...many on the Left and many posters on OC, believe that higher tax rates are best for the economy and saved our country in the 90's. Even Clinton runs around championing how when he was prez, we had a balanced budget and a growing economy and his tax rates were the best. Now...the same guy is saying lower rates are needed and better than the rates HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR. He isn't named Slick Willie for nuthin!!

Different economic model. The Clinton model was higher taxes (compared to the late 80s) to invest in innovation (Increase I in Macro econ) and do nothing monetary policy wise. He had a hands off policy towards innovation and because of that, we had the tech boom. The taxes helped, but again, different time.

Now, the economy is much weaker and the government has pretty much maxed out the I in macro terms. Putting back the taxes to 1990s level now, without the ability to inject I in the economy and have innovation.

ptown_trojans_1;599667 wrote:Different economic model. The Clinton model was higher taxes (compared to the late 80s) to invest in innovation (Increase I in Macro econ) and do nothing monetary policy wise. He had a hands off policy towards innovation and because of that, we had the tech boom. The taxes helped, but again, different time.

Now, the economy is much weaker and the government has pretty much maxed out the I in macro terms. Putting back the taxes to 1990s level now, without the ability to inject I in the economy and have innovation.

I know what you are saying, but let me take you back to the election of 1992....Clinton and Carville extolled this mantra daily: "We have the worst economy of the past 50 years". "We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression". "it's the economy, stupid." So...Clinton's solution to a bad economy and a recession was NOT to lower tax rates as it is today. So you are saying he came in during a great economic expansion and his "hands off" approach was best? If the economy was in such great shape, me thinks Bush's daddy would have easily won, as he had 90% approval ratings in 1991.