Obama: No more debates before May 6th

[Ramo]

1. You realize there's an incredible variance in terms of recession lengths, right?
2. That's a larger average than what I'm familiar with. 'Course, because of said variance, the average largely depends on what time scale you're averaging over.
3. You said the height of the recession would be 2010. Assuming the recession is symmetric in time, using your number (and again, I think this exercise is ridiculous), that's mid-2009 or so, at the latest.
4. What puts the absurdity of this topic even further is that he didn't even commit to a specific time to revisit tax policy. 2010, as I said, is the natural time only due to legislative expedience. If we're in the midst of a 4 year recession, I would imagine that Congress would have bigger things to worry about than inertia...

I don't think Obama is the one who's full of crap...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So the guy who's campaigning to reverse the Bush tax cut is going to wait until 2010 to do it? Having a full year as President of doing absolutely nothing to the Bush tax cuts?

And he didn't say 4 year recession, he said 4 year cycle. You know that. You are just putting words into his mouth as you tend to do when "debating".

[Ramo]

1. Yes, he will wait a year. And Hillary would do the same thing. It's easier to not pass a tax cut than to repeal a tax cut.
2. He said that the height of the recession is 2010. That mean a 4 year recession unless the cycle is extremely asymmetric in time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ogie]Recession is prolly not yet underway[/q]

And I agree.

Yes, he will wait a year. And Hillary would do the same thing. It's easier to not pass a tax cut than to repeal a tax cut.

You apparently have never heard of the First 100 days. When you make an economic policy one of your central campaign promises, you are not going to wait a year because the prior plan expires then. You are going to take advantage of your honeymoon period.

[Ramo]

at this point in time i.e. pending a recession if not already in one

[Ramo]

You apparently have never heard of the First 100 days. When you make an economic policy one of your central campaign promises, you are not going to wait a year because the prior plan expires then. You are going to take advantage of your honeymoon period.

No, you are not. Because in this respect, your agenda basically means not doing anything. Which is pretty easy to get through Congress, generally speaking.

This is Politics 101.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, I can requote...

Recession is prolly not yet underway

And to add...

make me think 450 days is indeed optimistic

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

You apparently have never heard of the First 100 days. When you make an economic policy one of your central campaign promises, you are not going to wait a year because the prior plan expires then. You are going to take advantage of your honeymoon period.

No, you are not. Because in this respect, your agenda basically means not doing anything. Which is pretty easy to get through Congress, generally speaking.

This is Politics 101.

That's moronic. Politically dumb. Hey, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire next year, so I'm not really going to repeal them as I've been insinuating throughout my campaign... I'm just not going to renew them. So for the next year or so, we'll still be under it... even though its ****ing up the budget.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans.

BUT, you'll have to deal with it another year because it'll just expire... I won't push to repeal it or change the tax code at all until they expire, so just deal with the 160 times greater tax cut for the wealthy until then... kthx!

Yeeeahhh... don't think so.


Hell, Reagan passed his tax cut in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) and Clinton passed his tax hike in 1993 (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993). People are going to wonder why Obama doesn't have the balls to push through his tax reforms and will simply "wait it out".

[Ramo]

Yes. Unless there's a huge Dem majority (near 60), that's exactly what's going to happen. 40 votes in the Senate kills a repeal dead. As I said, Politics 101.

Oh, I can requote...

I don't know what you're trying to prove. I already walked through the logic here. The original point is bull****.

[Ramo]

People are going to wonder why Obama doesn't have the balls to push through his tax reforms and will simply "wait it out".

It's not balls, it's filibusters. It'd be dumb to expend your political capital on something that'll happen with no effort a year later.

[Ramo]

Imran, why is your favorite candidate so moronic and politically dumb?

I will make it clear that the Bush tax cuts on the upper income, those making more than $250,000 a
year, will be allowed to expire.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/hillary_clinton_tax_reform.htm

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let the Republicans try to filibuster it, but I'm guessing if the Dems have ~55 Senate seats and you have folks like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on the Republican side, that won't exactly work.

And Ogie is correct (the recession yet to arrive and it'll probably go for a few years)... even if you really, actually think Obama is taking the huge PR hit of doing nothing about the Bush tax cut for a year even though he's been campaigning strongly against it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Imran, why is your favorite candidate so moronic and politically dumb?

I will make it clear that the Bush tax cuts on the upper income, those making more than $250,000 a
year, will be allowed to expire.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/hill...tax_reform.htm

Because she hasn't thought it through. Letting a tax cut you think is utterly horrible simply expire, after continuing on it for a year of your Presidency is politically stupid. It shows a lack of guts.

[Ramo]

Guts don't beat filibusters. The non-open seat Dem pick opportunities are moderatish Republicans (Smith, Collins, Coleman). And it's not like all Dems are on the same page either (Baucus, the Nelsons, Johnson, etc. would likely object). Remember that the second round of Bush tax cuts got through a Dem controlled Senate. Imran, fighting on this would be dumb. No Dem would ever do this.

There are way to many fights that they have to be waged. This is pointless.

And Ogie is correct (the recession yet to arrive and it'll probably go for a few years)...

Would you give me next week's lotto numbers? Ogie denied me.

BTW, what's "a few"? And when do you think it arrives?

The original point, again, was that a tax hike would have to occur in the midst of a recession. That is complete nonsense.

[Ramo]

actually think Obama is taking the huge PR hit of doing nothing about the Bush tax cut for a year even though he's been campaigning strongly against it.

I'd be shocked if anyone but the far left of the party would give a ****. Both candidates have been careful in saying that they would let the tax cuts expire.