I had been relatively sanguine about deficit spending because I anticipated: a) an economic recovery; and b) expiration of the ill-advised Bush tax cuts. Obviously I’m an idiot. Obama and the GOP have struck a deal whereby the tax cuts would be extended and Congress would allow for an additional 13 months of unemployment benefits. They’re calling these things “temporary;” Mr. Obama says that *next time* he’ll fight extension of tax cuts for the rich, but we’re in Lucy-with-the-football territory here. That’s not going to happen.
If Mr. Obama thinks I’m being sanctimonious by calling this a horrible idea, then, with respect, bite me Mr. President. Call their bluff. See if they’re really willing to raise taxes on huge majorities to protect the interests of the wealthy. Push a new tax plan, maybe get credit for your own tax cuts. As it is, Bush continues to get credit for tax cuts, Obama gets blamed for the deficit.
I suppose I am insufficiently compassionate for the unemployed and for millionaires, but my suspicion is that my economic prospects would be better if I lost whatever tax benefits I receive under the Bush versus the Clinton era tax structure and, in return, the money lost on this deal was available to reduce the deficit, pay down the debt, or other purposes. At least the Depression era public works projects gave us tangible infrastructure we still use today. To me, this just looks like another squeeze on the middle class for the benefit of the rich and the poor.
Amen, Brother Doug. Amen.
This right here:
I was against most of the stimulus spending, except for those that would be the modern version of the above.
Having ubiquitous broadband would be the modern version of the Interstate Highway System, if you pardon me for sounding a little Al Gore. It would do so much to start real business growth, and it would be worth letting the tax cuts expire to pay for.
I certainly think, dollar for dollar, that more Americans would get a real benefit from that than they will by the tax cut.
Seeing as how the middle class gets $3.2 trillion in tax relief compared to a paltry $900 billion going to “the rich”, I don’t see how you can say that the middle class is being screwed. Then you get into the additional tax cuts that were thrown in (payroll tax cuts, EITC extentions, and whatnot) and if you look at the ACTUAL NUMBERS, I really don’t see why a liberal like you is upset with this deal.
Unless all you are concerned about is sticking it to “the rich”.
Moreover, there is a lot of Keynsian stimulus in the deal. I would think that you would be stoked that this will help Obama’s re-election.
But you did admit that you’re an idiot. ;)
I could buy into a plan that reset taxation AND spending to Clintonian levels, but that was not a plan that was on the table.
Might be time for a new table.
“Having ubiquitous broadband would be the modern version of the Interstate Highway System, if you pardon me for sounding a little Al Gore. ”
In what way do we not have “ubiquitous broadband”? I am amazed at my broadband choices: cable, DSL, Clearwire 4G wireless, and three 3G wireless carriers. Most people have these choices in urban and suburban areas.
I heard that “4G” wasn’t really up to that standard yet. Is that not correct?
What about rural areas? And rural stretches of highway? Drove to Seattle once and even though the cell phone map showed service the whole way, I experienced plenty of dead zones. Hello, Montana!
We’ve got Clearwire here in the Chicago area, including NW Indiana. It’s Wi-Max, and you get DSL speeds.
Why should anyone expect to live in the sticks and have access to broadband? Is getting broadband to the most remote locations in America really worth the billions upon billions of dollars it will take to get it? For what? So your kids can watch YouTube in the backseat on a long trip?
You can already get that with satellite broadband! What a country.
It was the word “ubiquitous”, Buzz
I know many people that have businesses that can only be in the country, and they have NO options that would support broadband.
Satellite & anything below true 4G (which really does not exist yet, regardless of what Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile say. Theirs is at best 3.5G) has too high of latency to be useful for real time things like videoconferencing or VoIP.
There are many applications that have not seen widespread adoption because you can’t make the assumption that people have the ability to use it. If we had broadband everywhere, we could.
Things like VoIP would reduce the cost to businesses, and more broadband would open them up to things like teleworkers that would allow them to employ more people for less money. That right there would be more effective than a tax cut income over $250,000.
Lastly, there are many areas that might have a single provider for broadband. That is also bad news, as they can demand whatever price they want. The free market does not work well with utilities.
Buzz, put it another way. Why should people expect telephone service out in the sticks? We have agreed in the past that in order for telephones to be effective, everyone should have access to them.
Now, are you going to try to argue (on a blog) that the Internet is less important than telephones in this day?
I agree with Buzzcut. The process of choosing where to live is a cost/benefit analysis. If anything, it is much more efficient for govt. to have a dense population than to have a less dense population. Therefore, it makes no sense to have the urban dwellers (who pay a higher cost of living as well), subsidize the rural dwellers.
Telephone service is a great example of this failed policy. Our population has paid significant taxes and fees on landline services for decades to subsidize the cost of telephone service for those who chose to live in more rural areas. In some cases, you have poor urban dwellers (with a high cost of living) paying telephone line taxes to pay for infrastructure to rural areas, including those that are quite wealthy. That is a a terrible allocation of resources. (A similar terrible wealth redistribution was the “cash for clunkers” where federal tax money was redistributed to those that had purchased a gas-ineffecient automobile and decided to trade it in when gas reached $4 a gallon.)
If someone wants to live in the middle of nowhere, I am absolutely fine with that. Just don’t tax me to subsidize their decision to do so. (This argument also is a good example why the entire county should not receive bus service to schools).
Paul, where do you think all of the coal, gravel, wood, meat, fruits, and vegetables come from when in the city? Do you see many pig farms in downtown Indianapolis?
I understand and somewhat agree about the cost/benefit to where you live, that’s why I don’t live in the countryside. I work in computers, so high-speed access was my primary consideration when home shopping. I have the flexibility on where I live, but I don’t when it comes to Internet.
However, it is ignorance to think that everyone has a choice of living in the city, or more to my point, working in the city. Since I assume we all understand that small businesses are the core to employment in this country, I would also assume you would want to support small businesses that must be located in areas outside the cities.
Every one of these small businesses, from gravel pits to dairy farms, supports all of those people that live in the big city. If their costs go down, then the costs of goods to the city should also be able to go down.
Also, us idiots in the countryside need your support now that we have warehouse most of your sexual predators. Those laws about not living within a certain distance of certain types of places has made rural areas the only place they can live.
That’s funny, Jason. I happen to think that there is a pig farm in Downtown Indianapolis. It’s got a domed roof. They produce a lot of pork there. ;)
We have absolutely no idea what is coming down the pike, technology wise. With the switch to digital television, the Feds are opening up some of the unused television spectrum. Who knows, perhaps that will enable wireless broadband that satisfies the geeks among us (sounds like Jason is one ;)
So, not even accounting for the lost liberty involved in a Al Gore style government funded broadband program, the likelihood is that it would be a lot like municipal wi-fi: obsolete even before it’s built.
“However, it is ignorance to think that everyone has a choice of living in the city, or more to my point, working in the city. Since I assume we all understand that small businesses are the core to employment in this country, I would also assume you would want to support small businesses that must be located in areas outside the cities.”
Jason, last I checked, slavery was eliminated with the 13th amendment. Employers that have to locate outside of an urban area (pig farms, coal mines, etc.) can pay employees extra to either (1) commute or (2) change their living location. If an employer in a particular preferred industry cannot afford to compensate employees the necessary amount, only then should we even consider providing such a subsidy, and it should be provided to the employer, not the employee.
Paul, I’m not talking about the employees, I’m talking about the actual business locations.
Buzz, we know that fiber-optic is fairly future proof, at least for the next 70 years or so. My proposal would be to replace all of the 100+ year old copper we have out there & replace it with glass. Once the glass is there, the equipment at either side can be upgraded as technology improves to go faster and faster.
I’m curious, do you guys also feel like we should switch to toll roads across the country, with the tolls getting higher as the miles into the woods increase? Is theft (taxation) for roads any different than for Internet?
I don’t know about toll roads, as they tend to be very regressive.
Regarding Doug’s post: I’m pretty pissed off at the President too, not really because of the tax cuts themselves, but his complete wussy attitude toward the Republican party.
The GOP has been the ELECTED MINORITY for two years, but he let them push him and the majority around time after time. Rather than force votes, and force the GOP to perform a real filibuster and shut down government, the Dems have caved every time. Why WOULDN’T the Republicans keep up this behavior? The GOP controls the message, no one in the Democratic party is on the same page, and even controlling two branches of government they couldn’t get their progressive agenda pushed through. Instead, they went for wishy-washy, middle of the road solutions that don’t actually solve the problems that they are trying to fix. Meanwhile, even after holding their breath and getting their way, watering down legislation at every turn, the GOP STILL calls them socialists and communists and riles up their base. It’s a lose-lose-lose for the Dems and they are sheep walking to the slaughter.
I’m a fiscally conservative, socially moderate democrat, and I’m mad as hell at my party. I don’t think ANY of the parties or members currently in congress deserve to be there. All of the hope and change I was promised has been eaten up by vitriol and backhanded politicking. And in lieu of true bi-partisanship that was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, my party is too scattered and pussy to stand up and actually govern.
Unless something MAJOR changes in the next two years (and it won’t, the GOP is happily going to stall their way through and run out the clock, to the detriment of America) Obama won’t be elected in 2012. I sure as hell won’t vote for him and without people like me, a 30 something, middle class, father of three, lifelong democrat, he is NOT going to win. And since our Party isn’t going to put up anyone credible to challenge him, you can all say hello to President Romney in 2013.
And yes, I know the GOP has been the minority longer than 2 years, I meant while Obama was President.
I don’t see the GOP as currently constituted on the national level nominating anyone I could support in favor of Obama. If the general election is Obama v. Palin, for example, I’d owe it to the country and to my kids to vote for President Obama; grumpy as I may be over the failure to negotiate with any good sense.
My strategy would be that – if they’re not going to vote for something, don’t put anything they want in the legislation.
I understand the concern about Palin. Still, you think Obama > (all of) Mitch, Huckabee, Mitt, Jeb Bush, Pawlenty, Pataki, Bloomberg, Jindal and Christie? Or do you think some of the above couldn’t win the Primary?
I’d look at Bloomberg. Once upon a time, I might have looked at Jeb, but those are family ties that can’t be overlooked. Christie reminds me of way too many loud mouthed assholes I’ve had to contend with over the years for me to be entirely rational about him. I think I’d very much enjoy Huckabee as a person, but he seems too willing to let religion bleed over into government.
Anyway, my sense this year is that the more palatable a nominee would be to me, the less palatable it will be to the Republican base. I doubt Eisenhower or even Reagan could get nominated in today’s climate.