Pay Dirt / Tax Mud

Rachel Maddow rakes over Senator Kyl for his not intending to make "factual statements" shovel.*
He never actually said X, but effectively and economically, Y is the same thing. Except when it is for the 99%. Tax cuts for the 1% do not need to be paid for. Also not extending the Bush tax cuts, is a tax increase. But tax cuts for the 99%, those need to be paid for, and not extending them are not a tax increase.

I think the slogan "NO NEW TAXES" is very Democratic, give us the old taxes. And a new Texas might not hurt.



*12-1-11 bold and link added: X-mass L[!] & Google** of the day***.
** if capitalized, I give credit where due, if not, then it is like clean-X, or ex-finity? And there is always the upper-L search box.
***LSM Clinton[/](Lewinsky)Scandal MoveOn (Truly[*iv] Never Never Land)
*iv: see 3 minutes in till you google, Republicans say raise taxes(po lls ).
[* Follow-up]

[X= "I have never said that all tax cuts always pay for themselves."
Y= "You should never have to off-set the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans..."
Senator Kyl is not lying about what he has never said, literally, but see chart, and how tax cuts pay for themselves. But there is a two fold problem here. One, following my words in the equation. Two, following the chart. But it seems to me that actually, in the Permanent Tax Cuts category, it would be even harder to say. But it does seem to show a relative benefit to old tax rates mixed with Obama tax rates, and flip-flopping the Republican tax policy, as we have virtual mud from the trickle-down. And we even have pun with the bank and the cave.]

XIV: allegory of the cave (a,b,c,d,e)
or singular(a,b, c ,d,e,f,g,h,i,j)

[hint C.3: MoveOn / GPS]
[Last UL Search (a,b,c,d)]
Speaking of mud. RM Glitch host.

Brackets and the Debt Clock

[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]

[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]

The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.

The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.

Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.

Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.

But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.



[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]

*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself

[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!

[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]

Darned if you do, darned if you don't...

bring things(and people) to the table. There is a dynamics of griping in this piece(Sam Steins HuffPo), but one in particular I must note:

For one, various areas of policy disagreement within the White House remained unresolved. In particular, officials familiar with the discussions say, Obama's economic advisers warned against calling for a final balance of three dollars in spending reductions for every dollar generated in additional tax revenue, arguing the ratio was too explicit.

From his (President Obama's) Fiscal Speech:

I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the fiscal commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there’s enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

So it seems the realization could be made that the ratio is much more balanced, recognizing loopholes as spending not additional tax revenues. While this may seem like semantics it is actually a valid accounting of rhetoric. And in some ways it is similar to the gripe that the President as leader is either "the one" or is supposed to leak his strategy to followers. By this I refer to the complaints that he kept some in the dark, yet allowed the Republicans to go first on the fiscal plan. There are many fronts in the process called government, but it is different than partisan politics or military strategy.

[Future pacing? i.e. thanks to Thom Hartmann for reference to "previous pacing" in regards to: Why don't we call it the Republican Debt and Deficits?

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -- but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -- tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

That is not all...(later referred to as "hanging chad" .]

[The above presaged the Facebook Townhall with President Obama (video).(ABC? Real Clear or Misc?)]
[Then there is bold or miss-taking taxes.]

[Italics mark - editing - and I note here additional gripe from Sam Stein:

Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing...(cont.) ]

Still haven't

read all links in the last post, but I will extend the remarks :

There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.

Ezra Klein goes on to say:

The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done.

But I don't think that the actual "stimulus effect" of the stimulus package or the tax policy can be included in these numbers. i.e. if any tax cuts provide stimulus or raising them would damage the economy

[Let alone]
[BTW: Happy Anniversary to both of us. Political Punch's 5th, my 8th Technically I have not relied much if any, on Political Punch]

Debt and Tax Cuts,

debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.

Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.

And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Original reaction: Not to Second Guess.

This idea coalesced from a Melissa Harris-Perry(*) panel and a Jared Bernstein reaction.
What irritated me was the piling on upon Mitt Romney. The second guessing was how Jared Bernstein discusses the context he was taken out of. As the panel on MH-P continued after her weigh-in on words via Barack Obama the segment on Word Police had nothing to do with my change, but everything to do with it; change and context and victim hoods. Not to mention "quote(s) from Nerdlandia" creeping into the X-change. (The hazzards of live blogging.***) I had no clue in the "footnote" controversy.** Am I falling for the spin, that Raw Money is a victim? Or do I forget my own theory of Share 'n Angle? Not too mention differences of intents[!]
* to be updated
** to be related later[!]
*** the alternative would be more awkward[!]

7-9-12 A Hunch Revisited as Obama prepares* to speak on extending part of Bush tax cuts.
[Segue/break: the "Dogs" above are "aTax dogs"; my subtle skirt of the issue.]

Regarding the president's speech, here are my rough notes:  Jobs.. core mission... rebuilding economy...stalemate...choice two views.  Top down- wrong...typical middle class tax cuts $3600... repeat $3600 Obama midle class tax cuts... for sake of misinformation.  We tried, slowest job growth, falling income, rising deficits... we can't afford more.  [me: we 1/2 tried more or other way].  People are with him, cut small business taxes 18 times, for 97% of them.  We should agree to do what we agree on!  [poor 1%, 2% 3%]  One year extention for under $250K then we can debate the rest and act or wait till after the election.  You are the ones driving the economy.  Learn lessons of the past, build foundation for the future.

* speech here[Note that links for "A Hunch Revisited" were contemporary, not later insertions. Referencing democracy and choices of direction.]

[Andrea Mitchell follow-up here: "fiscal cliff"?** and tug of misinfo!  Deficit distraction or key?]

[Bingo was his dog!  NewsNation "big tent" not to mention simple math from idiots.  I'm sorry, but math is where the numbers lie.  It is math warfare.  But I digress. Well,* not exactly ! ** And pardon my pun but Swiss Romney Knife?]

** bit of a cycle/anachronism here*** regarding insertion of links & today's asterisks.(I may not have the right fiscal cliff clip but neither does the math add up for AM or RNC. Re:Bingo and math of the dog carrier or station waggin')

*** (rather here **) HW B? (SK re/v SE: 5:25 HW Harvy Weinstein)

[OW to Act?]
[Bingo too point OH! (see poor 1%, 2%, 3%: LR RL)]
(Anachronistically where does MB fit in here ? i.e. I can' remember where Luke Russert was nailed down.  But I think it was Martin Bashir who was asking about the 1, 2 or 3% and the previous sequence w/links does hit the nail on the understanding or aTAX jobs.)
[Hardball: David Corn to Smerconish "Sin of making sense". Then Bob's your uncle. It certainly rots at the head. MM Marshalling Message ?]

I'm not even

gonna read this yet, or MoveOn to this. But is this the deal?
[Scroll over links for 'nuf context]
It seems a spectrum of progress and contrast. From Bush, to Blair, from Tea Parties, to Newt. Each looks better in perspective to the others.
[9-15-10 Re: further preemption]
[Counter Balance[*] of Table]
[Just noting the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, as well as the "two party" system. While we near a deal of major import, minor fears drive local divisions, and have major costs. Democrats run divided, while Republicans divide to run. While this is not a clear and fair analogy, as of course division is needed in races within parties. But Democrats have not created a party to run against itself, while it has those in office who run rather* independent.]
[And Under the Radar]
* see Balance above and cost of debt and war

[Image use and source; original.]

[*][On the other hand, extending only the middle-class Bush tax-cuts only reduces the borrowing by $700 billion.]
[9-16-10: extending the Bush Tax cuts: adds $3.9 trillion** to National Debt, while extending only those above $250K would add only $3.22 trillion. i.e. reduce by $680 billion. ]
** 3.8? Quote: Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

Bloomberg/Scarborough

Scary!
I hope I can find a recent Michael Bloomberg interview where he whined about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Whine may not be an accurate description of it, but an accurate description of the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich was not in the interview either. For now I will have to whine that I can't find it. His whine did not demonstrate a basic understanding of the tax code, where each bracket of income is taxed the same for everyone. The next dollar one earns does not make the poor rich person a second class citizen.

The one thing?

[Right Columns Being Updated]

Well...
it was a chart that demonstrates the effects on GNP for various stimulative choices.

Translation:
Tax Cuts Bad
Federal Spending Good.
This of course is overly simplified, and relative to the position on the (Laffer) bell curve for tax rates.
Permanent tax cuts do not get even get half their money's worth of stimulative effect, while all categories under federal spending get well more than their buck's bang.

Speaking of "Killing two birds with one stone"...
Rachel Maddow [*] addresses the issue of Wisconsin and why Democrats exist(economic populism).
(Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll)

[Navigation aid: see bold link(s)]
[UPDATE 1-22-11 Keith and Rachel, D-part meant of Corrections and Stephanie Miller]
[Bottom Line? Democrats can stand strong and the American people will support them, and standing with the unions of Wisconsin and collective bargaining will be what the average American supports, the lopsided money and media to the contrary.]
[Potential follow-up: No to Violence, No to Prank News: But seriously.]
[*] my apologies the bold Rachel Maddow link has been corrected
[further Huckabee, Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman**, and Reverse Re-Verses.]
** must add show link for Norman

The Real B. S. of the F. C.

Balanced Solutions(Bernie Sanders) of the Fiscal Crypt(or FulCrum):

Anyone who believes that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem is unqualified to make decisions that will help the economy.  That is my summary, not that he* might not agree. 
Spending as a percent of GDP is the lowest in 60 years and the tax rates are the lowest in living memory.**


** Bernie Sanders (12-7-12) Need to update.
**I forget how many years that is.
(i.e. bu dump ump = Thom Hartmann, Norman Goldman***, and Randi Rhodes.)
*** Ctrl F "sound" (no dump but wedge between Thom and Randi on AM1090.)

Over and Under Planes. 
Stephanie Miller
Mike Malloy
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz.

[Meanwhile the real c. c.  Boehner blames the President for congresses own fiscal cliff march. Bush Tax cuts had expiration date.  The Republican congress refused to extend middle class tax cuts, and led country to credit downgrade and budget sequester deal over raising debt limit.  The President said he would not play those games.  The House is not likely to pass a deal that will pass the Senate and Presidential veto.]

Avian Update

Chicken Hawk Up.
Media Matters Alert!
Republican Trillions in Error*.
Not one for slow blogging or even reading...mean flighty links and flash blogging.***

[ASTE(R)ISK IV: TO READ(usually a self-admonition or pun)but see below between * & ** and note that the long term errors could be flip-flopped as4 investment turn around i.e Refudiate d Economics. Update under(over) construction.]

QCON: Stephanie** Miller
Conservative claim submitted that Sherrod leak was an Obama distraction from all of Obama's problems. My earlier thought was that it was a distraction from all his successes. In fact, my idea is supported by the fact that Breitbart had this for months.(by one account, accuracy aside) Camel's nose under tent? It occurred to me re: Tax increase verses Expiring Cuts. This means that Republicans are the camel's nose, when they now want to extend cuts scheduled to expire. On the other hump, Democrats will extend the middle class tax cuts. Not to mention one of these could actually pay for the other.[McClatchy]

* Trillions in error: based on 500 billion in 2020 alone
[Not to mention "tax on uncertainty" of small businesses being so impacted: If they hire more, they will be taxed less, and profit more.]
** Obama takes on GOP "shadow groups" and hails DISCLOSE act.
[***] see Deficit Pidgeons? non update ***.

Here We Go Again

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz

I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.

In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.

In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?

[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]

[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]

[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]

* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...


...Financial News with a real anchor!)]

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

The Nightmare Act

I didn't plan this.

The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.

[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]

Iron Knee?

Or I Ron Knee?
My first instinct was based on, this can't be right, could it? I guess it can. But the Immelt to Jobs is like a Nixon to China ploy. Unfortunately, that foreign policy reference may have backfired a bit, military friction has become economic friction. But a better word would be competition. Or would it?
But really, I am conflating two fields into one, or is it a third? The Tax Code. While it is not all about who's at fault, tax cuts or spending, or economic or foreign policy, having the biggest con(I mean beneficiary of tax policy and foreign policy) pushing for an overhaul, we just may eliminate many loopholes and level the playing field a bit. And as for contrast, Obama to Libya is NOT the Bush to Iraq or Cheesehead to Wisconsin moment.
[On another line: Democrats can hold the line and compromise, as long as there is a line that some Republicans will greet.

Extend Tax Cuts for All

under $250K or $1 Mill!
Stop mischaracterizing it as not for the wealthy too.

Alternative Debt Commission, and Alternative Tea Party Plan!

[Not* necessarily plans of this blogger]
*Thom Hartmann recently discussed: Is Obama the last Republican President?

[And who is fired up**? Not Obama. But "who let the dogs out?" Pun on yellow or blue dogs, but also partisan dogfights.]

[** Republicans throw down gauntlet of no until "we have funded the government" and "protected every taxpayer from a tax hike". Stop the spin cycle and let the dogs out. i.e. Democrats should get everything they can using all measures at their disposal. Meanwhile or rather yesterday, an Earnest caller to the Ed Schultz Show put it clearly,(if I may paraphrase) it is in the hands the Democrats in congress.***]

***Ribble on Legislate!

Missing thought

I am still trying to recover thought B, of labor day weak*. But it could be that I hit it already. The Bush tax cuts have failed to provide the jobs they were intended to, and they add to the debt. If this is not clear, there is big job market for people who think they know better.(sarcasm) BTW: war is a cost(Peace is an investment.)
[*italics indicate intentional spelling(missing sarcasm noted? sp! or sic = sarcasm in context)]

Joke of the Year!

"In turn, Republicans say Obama is acting like a stubborn partisan who will put the economy in peril in order to get his way."*

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Analysis-Obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-4091855.php#ixzz2EC9tWNey

THAT WAS THE PUNCHLINE, HERE IS THE SETUP.

"Seeking to cement those impressions, the White House is casting Republicans as willing to forgo tax cuts for the middle class in order to protect lower rates for wealthier Americans. Rates for all income earners will go up at the end of the year if both sides can't reach a deal."

Read more: Ibid.

OR WAS IT A STRAIGHT LINE to the people and UPPER CUT from the Republicans?

"Obama has made that case to Republicans before only to back down in the final stages of negotiations. But this time around, the president and his team believe they hold the political leverage**."

Read more: Ibid.

*NOTE: These Seatlle PI quotes included no hyperlinks, those are my sorts.
** It is only funny if you enjoy political hypocrisy, cynicism, screaming and pulling your hair out.  The political leverage and political capital is completely on the President's side. 
(Ctrl F: political capital) ALSO Re:"time" will expire.

(fn)

[Full Crumb ? Or Fiscal Crypt ? ]
[Foundation Culture ! v.c. tetrahedron !]
12-6-12  [Somewhat correlated ?]

(cont.) All Tax Cuts

are not created equal and "going to the mat" is a term of contention, not a veto or even a scoring term in contention.

Paradigm Rebuilding

I will have to read these two more carefully. And the 1 in 5 for expiration of all Bush tax cuts is interesting, and this Krugman piece may have slipped off my radar. Tangentially...and more Re-CAP.