dagblog - Comments for "Symbolism huh?"

I don't think so.

bdtex — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:47:14 +0000

I don't think so.

I think you got that

Atheist — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:01:47 +0000

In reply to If it was deficit neutral it

I think you got that backwards. We could make them deficit neutral by "offsetting" them with spending increases.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. If you compare the new bill with the status quo of having all tax cuts, then the bill that eliminates the tax cuts on the highest income levels would help with the deficit. However, if you're comparing it with what would happen if the tax cuts elapsed, then we have the situation you're describing.

If it was deficit neutral it

bdtex — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:37:25 +0000

In reply to Question: since the bush tax

If it was deficit neutral it could be. We already know that they're not deficit neutral if extended unless they're offset by spending cuts.

Question: since the bush tax

we are stardust — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:10:55 +0000

In reply to Symbolism huh?

Question: since the bush tax cuts were passed by reconciliation, why couldn't a tax extension for under-a-quarter-millionaires be done through reconciliation?