people are suggesting that the deal ends the Bush tax cuts

I'm seeing it in a lot of posts as "positives" of the debt deal.

What does it say about the deal that people feel that to make the deal look good, they have to add things (big things), that aren't there?

"This plan contains zero guarantees that taxes will be raised -- more on that below. But it's unexpectedly compatible with the White House pledge to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire, particularly those benefiting the wealthiest American. Here's why: When the new fiscal committee convenes, it will have free reign to look at both entitlement cuts and tax increases. The problem is that tax increases are scored by the Congressional Budget Office against "current law," which assumes the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts. So if the committee tries to end the tax cuts for the top earners, but make the rest of them permanent, it will score as a big tax cut and thus a budget buster. Not something a committee tasked with deficit reduction will want to touch. But that means the committee will have to look at other revenue raising options -- loopholes and expenditures that have nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, say, or a new millionaire's tax bracket. But that also means the Bush tax cuts will survive this process in a way that almost guarantees they'll be set to expire at the end of 2012. That gives Democrats a lot of leverage if they want to pick a fight over those cuts with Republicans next year. History suggests they'll chicken out. But perhaps they won't."


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/the-four-big-problems-with-and-four-silver-linings-around-the-debt-limit-deal.php?ref=fpa

Have you not been paying attention?

Because I've been paying attention to what ACTUALLY has been happening.

:shrug:

:freak:

have a straight jacket regarding raising taxes.

The House was in stir----This raises taxes on Rich.

No says Ryan to Bret Bair at Fox. It is convoluted.

Since Ryan is one of the Bills Architects, I take him
at his word when he says this is not a tax increase.

The straight jacket put on the Commission regarding raising
any taxes must be a duzy.

I wonder if Dems even picked up on this or once again "looked
the other way as the Republicans did their mischief.

Report on Fox New, Shannon Breen Brett Bair.

Your post is almost indecipherable...

In that post or anywhere else.

:rofl:

GOP took care of the Bush Tax cuts by putting
a straight jacket on the Commission when it comes
to raising taxes. While Bush Tax cuts expire by
Law, it is going to be very very hard for the
Commission to raise taxes. (end GWB Tax cuts
is considering raising taxes.

I think they have hitched the Middle Class cuts to
Bush Taxcuts. Remove on remove both.

Do not count on Bush Tax cuts with out a lot of
give from our side. They will eventually have to
raise them but I see a lot of others being hit as well.

Ryan's trying to put lipstick on a GOP loss. The Joint Committee WILL recommend revenue increases, and the GOP WILL accept them rather than face the trigger consequences.

They're desperate to pass it now and represent it as a win, so they've invented some nonsense about the "baseline" preventing tax increases. This is a nice bit of nonsense, but completely non-functional.

The Republican got everything--what did we get.
The Debt Ceiling???

Perhaps some people are saying the Bush tax cuts (for the wealthy at least) are going to expire anyway in 2012, but nobody in their right mind says the deal ends them. Nobody.

And the Repubs didn't get to change that.

If Obama let all of the cuts expire last year, the media and DU would have screamed because he would have raised taxes on the 95% of Americans who make under 250k. And he promised not to do that.

The media would have called it his "read my lips" moment. And they would be running clips of Bush 1 and Obama making that promise.

On DU, the consensus would be that Obama hated the middle class because he raised their taxes during a fragile recovery, just when the middle class needed that money the most.

You may disagree with that view, but I was paying very close attention to this lose lose situation back in the fall of 2010. And the media, and DU were cultivating BOTH version of how Obama was BAD regardless of what he did.

Now ... after the election in 2012, win or lose, those considerations are irrelevant. Obama can't run again.

If he loses, he can simply let all of the bush tax cuts expire. And if he WINS, he can do the same.

He can't run again, and so the media can't use it to weaken him regardless. And what will DU do, go back to attacking him for raising taxes on the middle class? probably.

The deal says nothing about the Bush tax cuts and no one has said it does. As I said, yes, the tax cuts are due to expire separately from this deal. That's always been the case and would have been regardless of what deal had passed.

here's the example you say does not contain the blatant lie I'm talking about. It already stands out enough, imo, but I've added boldface to it:

What has emerged so far of the deal has been actually pretty good.

- Social Security untouched and not "on the table".
- Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled on Dec 31, 2012.
- 1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cut over 10 year ($120 billion a year.... less than 10% of budget... a big chunk of this from the wars winding down).
- Triggers more adversely affect defense than Medicare, if they kick in.

The post you quote doesn't say the deal makes the Bush tax cuts expire. It says, in effect, despite their being no revenue side to this deal, the good news is that the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire Dec 31, 2012.

Sorry, I can't help you to understand this any better.

the tax cuts are STILL supposed to expire, in other words having them NOT expire is not part of the deal as reportedly the Rs wanted (sorry, no link, read it somewhere, but I read too many things about this lately and I am not going to start fishing for it, may have been one of Ezra Klein's commenaries, but I am not sure).

in that example I provided, it's clearly represented as part of the deal that the tax cuts will expire. That is clearly a lie. Bold faced even before I put the bold face.

On another thread in this forum, currently with 47 recs, it counts the revenue from those tax cuts as a benefit from the deal. That is the same lie. People are reccing a $400 billion dollar lie.

would be cut / slashed / dismantled, as part of this deal, now can't explain why that didn't happen?

What does that say?

Oh wait ... they now predict that the cuts ARE coming, just later.

Is that really any different than what you complain about now?

In one way it is. The end of those programs was predicted to happen NOW. For sure. Absolutely, Positively.

And it didn't happen.

misrepresenting what's in the deal is another.

most about how any recommendation from this new committee, must be enacted.

Its a false claim, but I've seen multiple OPs and posts that assert it.

Is that the "misrepresentation" you refer to?

Well, by default, THERE WILL BE REVENUE INCREASES because those tax cuts expire.

Get it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x731852

(...)

If you view this deal from the perspective that there is a guarantee the Bush Tax Cuts will expire, then suddenly the deal swings wildly in favor of President Obama

(...)

but for those upset that the deal did not include any revenue, the fact that they are still on course to expire at the end of next year should mean something, right?

see my post 31 above. So not having them included is one of the few pluses in an otherwise pretty crappy deal.