View Full Version : Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest
ElNono
11-01-2012, 04:00 PM
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economy theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.
Article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?hp)
coyotes_geek
11-01-2012, 04:03 PM
something something nytimes liberal agenda something something.....................
coyotes_geek
11-01-2012, 04:06 PM
"Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.”
Translated: How can a report be credible if it doesn't give us the answer we're looking for?
clambake
11-01-2012, 04:07 PM
"Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.”
Translated: How can a report be credible if it doesn't give us the answer we're looking for?
lol
coyotes_geek
11-01-2012, 04:18 PM
Republicans have misplayed this whole tax issue so badly. It would have been so easy for them to agree to some token tax cuts and then turn around and ask Obama to come up with the 3x spending cuts he said he would back during the debt ceiling circus. Instead they decided to try portraying themselves as fiscal conservatives while simultaneously drawing a line in the sand over millionaires. Hasn't worked.
TeyshaBlue
11-01-2012, 04:20 PM
Republicans have misplayed this whole tax issue so badly. It would have been so easy for them to agree to some token tax cuts and then turn around and ask Obama to come up with the 3x spending cuts he said he would back during the debt ceiling circus. Instead they decided to try portraying themselves as fiscal conservatives while simultaneously drawing a line in the sand over millionaires. Hasn't worked.
Yup.
TeyshaBlue
11-01-2012, 04:22 PM
Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted."
Point.
Jared Bernstein, a former economist for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., conceded that “tax cuts for the rich” was “not exactly academic prose,” but he said the analysis did examine policy time lags and controlled for several outside factors, including monetary policy.
Couterpoint.
boutons_deux
11-01-2012, 04:25 PM
ideology-based Repug economics, the same as ideology-based Repug science.
If the facts don't fit Repug ideology, the facts are wrong.
DarrinS
11-01-2012, 04:27 PM
The author of a study that says tax cuts on high-incomes and small businesses have little to no impact on economic growth has personally donated at least $3,400 to President Obama since 2008—a fact that the media outlets touting the study have failed to disclose.
The author, Thomas L. Hungerford, also gave at least $2,450 to Democratic campaign committees during that same period.
Hungerford is a public finance specialist at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the nonpartisan agency that provides “policy and legal analysis” for members of Congress.
“CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan,” reads the CRS website. “Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.”
The CRS study, released on Sept. 14, was timely campaign fodder for the president. Obama wants to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses earning at least $200,000 a year, while his opponent Mitt Romney, who wants to lower tax rates on all levels of income.
Hungerford and CRS director Mary Mazanec did not immediately return requests for comment
scott
11-01-2012, 04:37 PM
Obviously if you have any of your own political beliefs, you are incapable of being a professional.
scott
11-01-2012, 04:42 PM
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economy theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.
Article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?hp)
The Congressional Research Service can withdrawn their report, but you can't withdraw all of the studies that say the exact same thing.
The myth that lowering personal income taxes from their current levels lead to business investment and economic growth has been dispelled with basic economic fundamentals and with high-level econometrics. The proponents of the myth like to tout "it's the common sense approach" that leads them to their conclusion, which unfortunately is still not an acceptable scientific justification for anything, especially when the argument comes from the same people who's "common sense" leads them to believe the world was created by an invisible zombie 6,000 years ago.
boutons_deux
11-01-2012, 04:42 PM
Repugs still pushing their repeatedly debunked lie, going back to St Ronnie's voodoo economics, that trickle down economics lifts everybody's boats, creates jobs, stimulates growth.
RandomGuy
11-01-2012, 04:46 PM
Republicans have misplayed this whole tax issue so badly. It would have been so easy for them to agree to some token tax cuts and then turn around and ask Obama to come up with the 3x spending cuts he said he would back during the debt ceiling circus. Instead they decided to try portraying themselves as fiscal conservatives while simultaneously drawing a line in the sand over millionaires. Hasn't worked.
Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps. :clap
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some fucking backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give entitlement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
TeyshaBlue
11-01-2012, 04:59 PM
Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps. :clap
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some fucking backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give entitlement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
YOU LIE! GFY!
Wild Cobra
11-02-2012, 05:44 AM
That does not compute...
Why would republicans kill it? In the conclusions, it implies the lower tax rates for the rich generate more tax revenue by them. This is something the liberals would target I think.
boutons_deux
11-02-2012, 06:06 AM
That does not compute...
Why would republicans kill it? In the conclusions, it implies the lower tax rates for the rich generate more tax revenue by them. This is something the liberals would target I think.
"lower tax rates for the rich generate more tax revenue by them"
WTF?
Wild Cobra
11-02-2012, 06:10 AM
"lower tax rates for the rich generate more tax revenue by them"
WTF?
Look at the data they cite. A tax rate about 1/2 as much for the rich made three times as many rich, at those taxation percentages.
If I have a marginal rate of 70% for 4% of the population, but a marginal rate of 35% for 12% of the population...
One thing the report implies is that tax rates tend to increase or decrease the number of rich. raising tax rates will decrease the number of rich tax payers!
boutons_deux
11-02-2012, 06:25 AM
WC :lol
All those extra rich tax payers explains why dubya'a and St Ronnie's tax cuts on the rich REDUCE the tax revenue by many $Ts. :lol
CosmicCowboy
11-02-2012, 07:28 AM
Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps. :clap
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some fucking backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give entitlement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
We are in agreement on this.
Th'Pusher
11-02-2012, 08:05 AM
We are in agreement on this.
Grover Norquist isn't and TBH, that is really all that matters. One of our two major parties has been taken hostage by an unelected and morons pour to the polls at a 50% clip to vote for these assholes.
Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps. :clap
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some fucking backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give entitlement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
I have MANY liberal friends; some reasonable, some not so much (wife being a professor and all)....
It has become readily apparent to me that there IS common ground between principled ideologues of different stripes - we consistently solve the world's problems over beers (one of these days we'll remember to record one of these sessions - the Federalist papers will pale in comparison, no doubt).
You, RG, are probably another one of those liberals - pretty level headed despite being basically wrong about just about everything;)
THIS is what makes me believe our elected representatives in Washington are all in this "gridlock" game together. The COULD work something out, but they CHOOSE not to - and each side keeps their own tribe in line by effectively blaming the other. They take on whatever persona is necessary to keep half of the country convinced the other half are either fascists, communists, or a combination of both.
Not that there aren't bone-headed ideologues in Congress, who would behave this way regardless - but they are just pawns on the board; put one of THEM on a Sunday morning show - and the quotes flow, the internets erupt, etc.....blue or red team called to arms.....
Short of throwing them all out (not going to happen) It's going to take a speaker with backbone and convictions, and a President of the same bent - but from separate parties (Clinton, Gingrich for example); who BOTH want to get something done in order for anything to get done. Neither of the men running for President is that guy; and neither potential speaker is that guy (or gal), unfortunately.
That's why I won't vote for either; doesn't matter.
Grover Norquist isn't and TBH, that is really all that matters. One of our two major parties has been taken hostage by an unelected and morons pour to the polls at a 50% clip to vote for these assholes.
It really does flow both ways.
The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.
The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.
Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 08:44 AM
It really does flow both ways.
The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.
The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.
Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.
If the Catholic church wishes to employ people, they have to hew to employment laws. If they can't pull their heads out of the 4th century, that is their problem, not ours.
If the Catholic church wishes to employ people, they have to hew to employment laws. If they can't pull their heads out of the 4th century, that is their problem, not ours.
A perfectly reasonable argument. One that can be debated on its merits. Why then, does the Obama campaign not put THAT in an ad? Why do they stretch the truth to make it sound like the Presidential candidate (not even Catholic) wants to ban contraception?
...or Why is the Romney campaign suggesting Obama want to ban all guns in some of its ads; he's never said anything like that, after all. I'm not running out to buy an arsenal...
(full disclosure, already have a reasonable arsenal on the recommendation of Homeland Security)
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 08:50 AM
It really does flow both ways.
The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.
The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.
Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.
You do realize that particular perception is driven by far more than this one thing right?
Blunt amendment opposition
invasive ultrasounds
increasingly negative depictions of feminists by the mainstream media
opposition to the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act
Cuts in WIC
polemics against welfare mothers
You can't claim or imply it is just ONE thing.
LnGrrrR
11-02-2012, 08:53 AM
Look at the data they cite. A tax rate about 1/2 as much for the rich made three times as many rich, at those taxation percentages.
If I have a marginal rate of 70% for 4% of the population, but a marginal rate of 35% for 12% of the population...
Uhm, you can't just say this without numbers. For instance, if that 4% of the population is making, say, 10 million a year, and let's say hypothetically that the population is, oh, 100 million people, that means the total amount of taxes taken in is (4 million * 7 million =) 28 trillion per year.
Using the same population, but going to 35% for 12% of the population, that same top 4% is now kicking in only 14 trillion. If the other 8% is making, say, 5 million a year, then you're set. But if that other 8% is making less than that, you'll lose revenue.
And since most of the wealth is concentrated closer to the top end, then the first scenario likely brings home more taxes.
Edit: Someone smarter than me, feel free to factcheck my math. It's 3:55 in the morning here and I'm not fully awake yet. :D (Having kids is awesome.)
boutons_deux
11-02-2012, 08:55 AM
"arsenal on the recommendation of Homeland Security"
link?
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 08:59 AM
A perfectly reasonable argument. One that can be debated on its merits. Why then, does the Obama campaign not put THAT in an ad? Why do they stretch the truth to make it sound like the Presidential candidate (not even Catholic) wants to ban contraception?
Because he is trying to win an election, and a lot of Democrats are Catholics. Easy. :D
I would agree that my statement is the one that needs to be debated, but the GOP is spinning this, as you have as a "religious right".
If the church wishes the right to have employees, then it has to obey our laws.
I don't see this as some horrible infringement on religious rights.
boutons_deux
11-02-2012, 08:59 AM
"Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney"
"religious-right groups in Texas are eagerly entering the war on women’s access to contraception and reproductive health care."
http://tfninsider.org/2012/02/14/texas-rr-groups-push-war-on-contraception/
‘Of Course It’s a War on Birth Control’
This wasn’t a momentary slip of the tongue. Christian is just saying out loud what many Texas lawmakers believe — and many more supported with their votes this session. The ideology underlying all the attacks on abortion and Planned Parenthood is fundamentally anti-birth control and anti-family planning. And as so many others have pointed out, it is ultimately self-defeating, as depriving Texas women of birth control is one sure-fire way to increase the number of abortions in this state.
http://tfninsider.org/2011/05/29/of-course-its-a-war-on-birth-control/
"arsenal on the recommendation of Homeland Security"
link?
The poster.
Because he is trying to win an election, and a lot of Democrats are Catholics. Easy. :D
I would agree that my statement is the one that needs to be debated, but the GOP is spinning this, as you have as a "religious right".
If the church wishes the right to have employees, then it has to obey our laws.
I don't see this as some horrible infringement on religious rights.
OK, then, it's a restriction of an employer's rights. A restriction of rights, it is.
It is the government by force of law compelling someone to do something they otherwise would not do. Removing choice, or options, as it were.
"Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney"
"religious-right groups in Texas are eagerly entering the war on women’s access to contraception and reproductive health care."
http://tfninsider.org/2012/02/14/texas-rr-groups-push-war-on-contraception/
‘Of Course It’s a War on Birth Control’
This wasn’t a momentary slip of the tongue. Christian is just saying out loud what many Texas lawmakers believe — and many more supported with their votes this session. The ideology underlying all the attacks on abortion and Planned Parenthood is fundamentally anti-birth control and anti-family planning. And as so many others have pointed out, it is ultimately self-defeating, as depriving Texas women of birth control is one sure-fire way to increase the number of abortions in this state.
http://tfninsider.org/2011/05/29/of-course-its-a-war-on-birth-control/
Romney is a Texas lawmaker?
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 09:28 AM
OK, then, it's a restriction of an employer's rights. A restriction of rights, it is.
It is the government by force of law compelling someone to do something they otherwise would not do. Removing choice, or options, as it were.
Why would you place the employers right over the employees right to access to healthcare?
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 09:30 AM
It is the government by force of law compelling someone to do something they otherwise would not do. Removing choice, or options, as it were.
This logic could be applied to someone with the desire to murder their spouse and bury them in the backyard.
I do not find it, therefore, overly compelling.
Governments should rightfully be doing exactly this, as a matter of course, and proper function.
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 09:31 AM
The poster.
LOL... that was funny.
Drachen
11-02-2012, 09:37 AM
Romney is a Texas lawmaker?
Don't engage him.
Why would you place the employers right over the employees right to access to healthcare?
I'm sorry, was there anywhere a law restricting an employee's right to buy contraception?
This logic could be applied to someone with the desire to murder their spouse and bury them in the backyard.
I do not find it, therefore, overly compelling.
Governments should rightfully be doing exactly this, as a matter of course, and proper function.
Absolutely, the Government does remove a right by outlawing murder; although through murder I have taken away another person's most basic right. Protecting that would be, to me, the government paramount obligation, Equating that with a right to free contraception - directly paid for by another citizen displays a lack of perspective that is, frankly, alarming.
ploto
11-02-2012, 10:07 AM
The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights.
You do know that many, many Catholic institutions already provide contraception coverage in the health insurance benefits for their employees - why else do you think you heard little about this in San Antonio where the largest Catholic hospital in the area does so.
boutons_deux
11-02-2012, 10:15 AM
"EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights."
the group insurance policies of those very same Catholic institutions actually did pay, VOLUNTARILY, for contraception for many years, and the Bishops said nothing.
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 10:18 AM
Absolutely, the Government does remove a right by outlawing murder; although through murder I have taken away another person's most basic right. Protecting that would be, to me, the government paramount obligation, Equating that with a right to free contraception - directly paid for by another citizen displays a lack of perspective that is, frankly, alarming.
I didn't say it was on an equal footing, just to be clear.
But once you establish what government is/should be doing, the only real question is to what degree.
Aye, there's the rub.
RandomGuy
11-02-2012, 10:20 AM
I'm sorry, was there anywhere a law restricting an employee's right to buy contraception?
No there was not.
That wasn't the issue, though.
The issue was why an employer should have the capacity or the right, to define what "health care" is, and what it isn't. That is not the function of private religious institutions acting as employers.
Th'Pusher
11-02-2012, 11:22 AM
It really does flow both ways.
The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.
The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.
Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.
236 representatives and 41 senators, almost all republican, have taken a pledge that they will never raise taxes under any circumstances to an unelected windbag whose goal is to shrink govt so that it can be drowned in a bathtub. And he holds them accountable to this pledge, zeroing in like a laser to oust anyone who breaks his sacred pledge. This is why negotiations break down. Not because of entitlement reform. It's always taxes.
boutons_deux
11-02-2012, 12:20 PM
Here's Gecko showing why Obama should be voted out because of how the Repugs will OBSTRUCT Barry's 2nd term and causes crises because Barry won't kiss the Repugs' asses.
"You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress. He has ignored them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy. The President was right when he said he can’t change Washington from the inside. In this case, you can take him at his word. When I am elected, I will work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. I will meet regularly with their leaders."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/02/1130701/romney-blames-obama-for-debt-ceiling-fight-promises-to-cave-to-house-republicans/
Here's Krugman showing what Gecko's bullshit really is
The Blackmail Caucus
If President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.
Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I've seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.
O.K., they don't quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of "partisan gridlock," as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren't. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.
If you want an example of what I'm talking about, consider the remarkable - in a bad way - editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama's signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.
Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims - as many of those making this argument do - that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable.
Is this a good argument?
The starting point for many "vote for Romney or else" statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn't be able to accomplish anything in his second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform - reforms that will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected.
But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not - but so what? America isn't facing any kind of short-run fiscal crisis, except in the fevered imagination of a few Beltway insiders. If you're worried about the long-run imbalance between spending and revenue, well, that's an issue that will have to be resolved eventually, but not right away. Furthermore, I'd argue that any alleged Grand Bargain would be worthless as long as the G.O.P. remained as extreme as it is, because the next Republican president, following the lead of George W. Bush, would just squander the gains on tax cuts and unfunded wars.
So we shouldn't worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done. On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office.
During the first two years of Mr. Obama's presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate - for the first time - into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.
And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the "fiscal cliff" is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something - an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy - that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.
Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn't. So, yes, there is a case that "partisan gridlock" would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.
But are we ready to become a country in which "Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it" becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=991178&f=28&sub=Columnist
Gecko and his Repug Congress as "bi partisan" ? G M A F B Gecko was not bipartisan as MA gov, with 800+ vetoes and ignoring the Dem legislature.
Wild Cobra
11-02-2012, 10:23 PM
WC :lol
All those extra rich tax payers explains why dubya'a and St Ronnie's tax cuts on the rich REDUCE the tax revenue by many $Ts. :lol
Really?
Are you suggesting that tax rates are the only thing that affects revenue, economy, etc?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.