Bush Tax Cuts Roil Democrats

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Wall Street Journal

Two more Senate Democrats called for extending tax cuts for all earners—including those with the highest incomes—in what appears to be a breakdown of the party's consensus on the how to handle the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said in an interview Wednesday that Congress shouldn't allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a sounder footing.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said through a spokesman that he also supported extending all the expiring tax cuts for now, adding that he wanted to offset the impact on federal deficits as much as possible.

They are the second and third Senate Democrats to come out publicly in recent days in favor of extending all the tax breaks for the time being. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) made similar comments last week.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954804575381501862552246.html?mod=e2tw

[JCMach1]

1. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Who needs Republicans when you have these tools...

[OnyxCollie]

15. Careful.

Failure to march in lockstep with the Democratic Party has serious repercussions.


















(I hear chocolate rations may go up.)

[Statistical]

2. The "good news" is the Democrats only need 40 votes.

Without Republicans having 60 votes the tax cuts will expire automatically. Even with a dozen defections the Republicans don't have enough votes in the Senate.

The bad news is that likely the tax cuts for the middle class (which will also expire without extension) will be held hostage. Middle class should prepare of the possibility that taxes will rise significantly.

[dmallind]

4. Easily handled though - introduce a bill afterwards to cut taxes for lower brackets

Let's see the Republicans try to spin voting against that....

[Statistical]

6. True however the leadership is spineless.

I fear they will use it as an excuse to roll over when as the facts indicate there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Misplaced priorities I fear.

[Hosnon]

28. But that would require 60 votes. Those last few votes would probably demand across-the-board

extensions.

[dmallind]

36. Do you really see anyone filibustering a middle class tax cut?

And of course 15%-28% bracket cuts ARE across the board - CEOs pay those rates on the first (small) part of their income at those marginal rates too.

[Hosnon]

37. The GOP is trying to block assistance for small businesses. I don't put anything passed them.

They've apparently decided that they must do anything and everything to destroy the economy in order to increase their chances of victory in November.

[dmallind]

42. You may be right - but that would be campaign suicide if framed right. NT

[SlimJimmy]

32. And this is what "pisses" me off about

our current crop of so-called Democratic Senators. As a member of the middle class, the last thing I can afford right now is higher taxes. Yet, we are hearing more and more about it, and that we should brace ourselves for it. What part of "we are still in an economic downturn" do they NOT understand? I'm doing good just to make ends meet, and I consider myself lucky to even be able to do that. So before you all go off on a tangent about how letting the Bush tax cuts expire is such a GREAT idea, try thinking about what that would do to us stuck in the middle.

[EnlightenedOne]

34. Those Bush tax cuts

didn't do a thing for you I suspect - they were only geared towards the very wealthy (top 1%), so somehow I doubt that's you. 95% of Americans got a tax break under Obama.

[SlimJimmy]

43. Without going into my salary

They saved me multiple thousands a year. I'm well under the 250K set by President Obama, but I'll absolutely take a hit if all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. As for receiving a tax cut under this administration? It amounted to about 40 bucks a month (give or take) Not much help at all. I don't think the expiration of rates on those above the 250K threshold will hurt those folks much, but it sure will hurt those of us in the middle if all of the cuts expire. And again, it pisses me off that my fellow Democrats don't seem to get that. It's easy to say "let them expire" soak the rich. But in the real world, those cuts will hurt those of us who aren't rich.

[joeglow3]

44. What are you talking about???

Child tax credit went from $600 to $1,000. Lowest bracket went from 15% to 10%. Standard deductions for all married couples went up (eliminating the marriage penalty). A family of 4 with an AGI of $50,000 would pay about $750 in taxes in 2009. Without the tax breaks, they would pay about $2,750.

You honestly tell me someone getting a 73% cut in their tax bill is "nothing?" I assure, when people file their taxes in early 2012 and nothing has been passed to extend the tax cuts for those under $250,000, we can kiss every branch of the government goodbye for years to come.

[Dawgs]

3. Ben Nelson a Democrat? LOL!!

Kent Conrad is also a joke.

[Roland99]

5. Yeah, because the multi-trillion dollar deficit caused by the tax cuts is a good thing.

Sure, yanking the stimulus in '37/'38 was a painful thing during the Great Depression but tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% ain't no freakin' stimulus!

Trickle Down is an EPIC FAIL!

[Ganja Ninja]

7. The usual suspects.

Obama should just call these two assholes up and tell them he'll veto any bill that has any kind of renewal or extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Somehow I doubt that will happen.:argh:

[sinkingfeeling]

8. How does keeping tax cuts for the wealthy 'offset the impact on federal deficits'?

[SILVER__FOX52]

9. Will you people in Nebraska please take out this FOOL....

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) has got to go. He is no Democrat.

[Snotcicles]

10. Conrad, Nelson, Bayh. Poser, Poser, Poser. nt

[NorthCarolina]

12. More like DLC, DLC, DLC.....

[hangman86]

14. Yeah, who wants to bet that

Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and maybe Baucus will sellout as well. Sellout again!

[hfojvt]

25. the disgusting thing is the Bayh and Conrad are not running for re-election

so they cannot use the "I am caving to pressure so I can get re-elected" excuse. Apparently they just really are that stupid. Either that or they are anticipating making $500,000+ being lobbyists after they get out of Congress and are just thinking of their own bottom line.

[wordpix]

39. it's clear some fat cats are promising them fat jobs if they'll play along, then

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Bush's crew understood this situation would be in place at the end of the cuts.

If it was a republican in the White House, he'd extend the cuts.

If it was a democrat, it would appear that s/he'd be "raising" taxes.

Swine.

[Loudmxr]

13. Do these guys realize there is a WAR going on?

[Enthusiast]

18. Deficits don't matter. nt

[Enthusiast]

16. They expire unless

there are enough votes to stop it, correct?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Correct

[Proletariatprincess]

19. In the history of the world,

there has never been a country that went to war and then cut taxes. Now with two wars going at the same time and a third possible and a staggering deficit, isn't it time to raise taxes? Especially on those who can most afford it. But congress is dysfuncional and Obama is incompetent....or just a wimp.
It is no wonder that the USA is failing on all fronts.

[Iowa]

46. +1

[Kingofalldems]

20. Thanks Breitbart*!

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. If you read the article, you would see that it is from the Wall Street Journal

[on point]

21. Warning to the Dems!! You are about to lose more voters!

The economic argument to this is junk.

Let the taxes for the wealthy expire.

Otherwise the dems risk showing, YET AGAIN, they do not care about the average person, but are simply servants for the wealthy.

If you thought people were angry before and not going to support the party, just wait

[lonestarnot]

22. We're watching you fuckers!

[placton]

23. time to call these and their fellow travelers what they are

GopDems

[wordpix]

40. they're GOOPs of the Grand Old Oligarchy Party

[denverbill]

24. Deficits only matter when you are thinking about helping needy people, right Nelson?

What makes him a Democrat anyway?

[A Physicist]

26. We need to keep the Bush tax cuts forever

Not really but that did make you click this message.

OK, we know keeping the tax cuts increases the deficit and national debt. We also know stimulus spending and unemployment extensions do the same. For stimulus spending the pragmatic fiscal argument is that, in the long term, it is more important to get the economy back on track, then after the economic growth-rate/job-creation is restored we can address the debt. For unemployment there is a compassion component which is synergistic with a pragmatic fiscal component of preventing foreclosures and displacing workers that will be needed when hiring resumes – we don’t want a skilled labor shortage strangling economic growth.

I have always been against the Bush tax cuts even though I benefit from them but I am not intransigent to the analysis of experts. I want a good economy with full employment so my question is:

For economic restoration, is a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts bad, good, or irrelevant?

Please provide links.

[Plucketeer]

27. Dumbocrats side with GOP

Source: RECKONING.BS

Dumbocrat senators, Kent "who put that D next to my name?" Comrad and Ben "who cares about the little guy" Nelson announced today that they'd heard from their campaign coffers that sources of significant contributions had advised them to stand in favor of Bush's crony enrichment scheme and it's ultimate extension. Armed with such insights, they've chosen to show their constituents their backsides as well as which party they REALLY bow to.

[waronbanks]

29. Again...the Corporates are in CONTROL

When are we going to stop thinking we have a functioning democracy? This is only surprising or troubling if you believe we have a fair and functioning democracy and we DONT. If anything has been made crystal fucking clear in the last year and half its that the corporates own this goddamn government.

The Corporates control the agenda so the tax cuts must stay.

Anyone wanna make a wager as to whether or not the tax cuts expire or stay? My bet is they stay. Any takers? I of course hope Im wrong and lose, but history tells me to bet with the Corporates.

[wordpix]

41. you are right, unfortunately, and unless this Amerika wakes up

we will get more of the same, and maybe another repuke admin in '12

[judesedit]

31. Total crock. The wealthy do NOT spend their money. They already have everything.

They don't give to charities, unless of course it's a tax write-off, and ONLY if they need one. They just continue to put their money in foreign banks, so no one knows their actual worth. I say the flat tax is the way to go. And fine and imprison ANYONE found to be avoiding paying their FAIR share. Just like they do the rest of us. The wealthy did NOT get that way on their own. Most used and abused many human beings to make their money, legally and illegally. Many used mommy's and daddy's money to hire lawyers, accountants, and stock brokers to teach them how to get around any laws that would keep them honest. Except for the dot com revolution, this country has done nothing but deteriorate for 95% of us over the last 30 years.

End the $700 BILLION in tax cuts for the wealthy NOW! These greedy bastards would not even approve $33 billion for 2.5 million U.S. citizens who are STARVING.

NO WAY...NO MORE TAX CUTS FOR ANYONE MAKING OVER $250,000. a year! Get rid of Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh asap. Nothing but greedy and self consumed tokens of big corporations.

[JDPriestly]

33. Here is why this is a big mistake. See for yourself.

. . .

Q. Do you have any evidence that lowering taxes on the wealthy is bad for the general public's living standards while raising taxes on the rich benefits the whole country?

A. Yes. In the roaring twenties (1918-1929) the top marginal income tax rate (that's the rate paid by the rich) went from 60% on incomes over 100,000 in 1920 down to 25% in 1929. A major part of the money not paid in taxes now went, instead of going to the government, into the hands of speculators who had only one interest: to make more and more money. High risk speculators are gamblers who use the stock market as their casino.

Q. Can you explain?

A. Like gambling, high risk trading in the financial markets becomes an addiction. A gambler at a roulette table experiences the thrill of a winning bet. As the thrill lasts only a short time , a player will put his winnings back on the table, hoping to recapture the exhilaration again and again by doubling and then quadrupling his money etc. This goes on until the player's luck changes and he loses all he has won the last time he doubles his bet.

Q. So the big market crash in 1929 came as thousands of gamblers lost their shirts in the stock market?

A. Yes, and as the gamblers lost everything, they could no longer pay debts owed on houses, businesses and other loans. This set off a domino effect. Banks who had lent money to people who had been able to repay their loans before the crash now had to write off the loans because their borrowers no longer had an income. For so many of the banks and their customers bankruptcy was the only option. People became desperate for money to keep farms producing, to keep businesses going and to get food on the table.

Q. Isn't that an oversimplification? Weren't there those among the wealthy who managed to hang on to their money and property because they were simply better at financial management? Why should they care about reckless gamblers who lost everything? Would there be a risk that the disciplined and wise who have survived the economic collapse might experience losses of their own?

A. Perhaps not at first. But if not stopped, economic decay brings social collapse. Without recovery, cities eventually turn into ghost towns, people die of starvation, communicable diseases begin to ravage the country, and eventually even the wealthiest of the wealthy would be unable to escape ravaging pandemics.

Q. So ultimately, it is to the interest of the wealthy to have a prosperous country with healthy people?

A. Without a doubt.

Q. So how did the country pull out of depression?

A. When businesses, factories and farms no longer had any cash to stay operational, they looked to the government for a rescue. The government, in order to bring society back on its feet, created jobs through public works projects and other means.

Q. So how did the government get the money?

A. In 1932 the government raised the marginal tax rate on $100,000 that had been lowered to 25% back up to 56% and this made it possible to finance a recovery. People got back to work as dams, roads and public buildings were built, and after the end of World War II, ordinary people managed to find prosperity as the government educated returning soldiers through the G.I. bill.

Q. How was it possible to get the money to educate millions of returning soldiers?

A. It was possible because the government imposed a marginal tax rate of 92% on $100,000 in 1945. A rate of 89% in 1946 stayed in place until 1954. Then the rate was lowered gradually until it hovered around 75% through the early 1960s. It was a time during which the U.S. became the greatest industrial power of the world, with the result that not just the rich, but everyone got richer.

---Tax data based on figures provided by the Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

http://howardthecoach.blogspot.com/

[RussBLib]

35. Oh, please. This is a no-brainer.

Do the Dems want to try and reduce the deficit at all? This is a simple no-brainer, as less than 1% of Americans will even be affected. I bet that Conrad and Nelson are in that group. Can't wait to get rid of Nelson.

If they can't even kill the Bush tax cuts, I think I'll have to swear off politics for awhile.

[wordpix]

38. bwhahaha, how are ConradBayhNelson going to get the economy on a "sounder footing" and

"offset the impact on federal deficits as much as possible" without ensuring EVERYONE pays their fair share? :grr: :banghead:

[WhiteTara]

45. I thought that hack Bayh was gone!

And now there his nasty name appears on my screen again. ack!