POLL: Do you think the Bush-era tax cuts will be allowed to expire?

[nashville_brook]

In the last few days I've noticed chatter about the likelihood that the Dems might not allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. Here's a representative sample of the news:

Expiring tax cuts pose dilemma for US lawmakers
By Rob Lever (AFP) – 2 hours ago

"It seems increasingly likely that Congress will extend most, if not all, of the Bush tax cuts for at least a year or two," said Howard Gleckman, research associate at the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. "As the economy shows growing signs of softening, lawmakers are less and less likely to take steps that will be seen as 'raising taxes,'" he added.

Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said the economic recovery is too fragile to allow taxes to rise, and that failure to extend the relief could undermine already weak consumer confidence. "Given the fragile state of consumer confidence and how worried all Americans appear to be in their financial security, tax increases at any income level are probably unwelcome," Guatieri said.

Other analysts say that keeping the full rage of tax policies would provide a windfall to the wealthiest Americans with little economic benefit.
"It's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren't likely to spend a windfall," said Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman of Princeton University.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ivsdlNFNGvf7d35E8awmC1fw2eZQ

So, what does DU think on this Labor Day weekend?

[Capn Sunshine]

1. WHERE'S THE FUCKING JOBS IF THIS TAX CUT IS SO GREAT?

The argument seems to go, "these tax cuts will help the economy" Well, let's see the economic triumph of the years the Bush Tax cuts were in effect?

How is letting Paris Hilton keep her tax bracket going to help things again?

[nashville_brook]

3. if tax cuts created jobs, we'd be at 100% employment by now.

[vi5]

6. Seems like common sense, doesn't it?

Doesn't it also seem like common sense that Democrats would be stating this very obvious fact at every opportunity on every show and in every single speech every moment they could get?

It boggles the mind.

[butterfly77]

8. How do you ..

get a tax cut when you don't have a job?

[grahamhgreen]

40. End of argument! nt

[David__77]

2. Better not extend them for long.

...

[rhett o rick]

53. Are you being sarcastic? nm

[Warpy]

4. I expect gridlock

because the Democrats want to keep the cuts for people earning under $250,000 and the Republicans want to end those and keep the cuts for billionaires. In the short term, neither side will prevail and everybody's taxes will go up to the Clinton era tax bite.

What happens in the next Congress depends on what happens in November.

[nashville_brook]

9. surely, letting them expire is the path of least resistance.

[DirkGently]

5. They better fn let them expire. Even talking about this shows what a

an insane, criminal environment we find ourselves in. How this can even be discussed is beyond all reason.

[dkf]

30. $500 per child tax credit gone. 10% tax bracket goes up to 15%. Marriage penalty reinstated.

Looking around I see a tax increase of at least $2000 for many families.

[nashville_brook]

33. holy crap -- i had no idea those increases were happening. fuck.

[dkf]

50. These were the Clinton rates that produced the surplus.

[DirkGently]

38. So, let me get this straight

We're allowing the handful of tax changes that helped the middle and working class to sunset, essentially without discussion, and it's going to be a titanic, touch 'n go battle royale to allow a deficit exploding, Bush-era gift to the richest sliver of Americans to sunset *as guaranteed when it was passed*?

What the helll is going on?

[dkf]

49. The Dems are trying to get just the middle/lower class cuts reinstated but they don't have the vote.

I'm not sure people realize what the Bush tax cuts did for them because all we talk about is what the top income earners got.

[Yupster]

44. Don't worry

Remember when Bush set up these tax cuts, middle class families got $ 15 a month. Never even noticed them.

They won't notice them coming back either.

[Radical Activist]

7. Yes. I'm not so easily foolded by the PR campaign.

These stories are being planted by people with an agenda. None of them have been able to quote or name any Democratic leader who has changed their position to favor keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy.
The articles you're seeing aren't reporting. Its campaigning by the special interests who pitched the stories. Progressives should know better than to fall for it.

[rhett o rick]

54. I'll bite. Who are the "special interests" who are pitching these stories? nm

[Radical Activist]

63. Executives from the companies who own the corporate press.

The ones who would benefit from the tax cuts. But more specifically, go back and read these stories. The quotes are all from a single adviser or from conservative "think" tanks. In fact they've all specifically stated that no Democratic leader is budging. That means a group affiliated with one of the people quoted in the article pitched the story to the newspaper. It's a lot of wishful thinking by corporate backed conservative groups like Heritage.

[rhett o rick]

64. So you think those that will benefit from extension of the tax cuts are pushing false info

re. Democrats support of extending the tax cuts? I would think that would generate a backlash and fire up those opposed the extensions. What is the motivation?

[Radical Activist]

67. Ok, take a look at who's quoted in the articles.

First, remember that most political news stories don't just magically happen because something newsworthy is going on. They either happen because a reporters was assigned to write about something by their editor (who may have an agenda) or they were pitched a story by some PR guy.

Look at the sources in two articles quoted on DU.

Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.
Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ivsdlNFNGvf7d35E8awmC1fw2eZQ

Most of it started with this Washington Post article. The only source for Democrats supposedly reconsidering was a single Democratic adviser to Nancy Pelosi, who used to work for John McCain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605951.html

Do you trust any of those sources to speak for Democrats? Also notice that there's absolutely no solid quote or evidence that the basis of the article is true outside of very speculative language.

[asdjrocky]

10. Based on past preformance, it's hard to seeing any Dems growing a spine. nt

[nashville_brook]

25. seems you are not in the minority on that.

[napi21]

11. If I were inCongress I would postpone the vote on tax cuts until right after the nov election.

You & I both know that the reason any of the Dems are afraid to vote for repeal is getting elected. After the elections they're free tovote their concience wether that means they got reelected and can vote yes because the worry is over, or they got defeated so it doen't matter!

[nashville_brook]

22. if i were 'in charge,' i'd force a vote on it immediately and make a moral stand...

that we can't afford the rich raiding the treasury anymore. they haven't created jobs, and there is a better, smarter way.

[napi21]

37. Sure they cold do that, but I think there are too many bluedogs

who would vote against it out of fear, and haven't they then lost the option to do it after the election?

[randr]

12. This is the tax bill Bush and the repugs wrote,

let it expire and call it what it is. The Repug giveaway that destroyed the nation.
When are the dems going to take one opportunity to brand the repugs on any issue?

[veganlush]

20. exactly right.

they wrote in the expiration because they had to in order to force the bill through via reconciliation. The dems should be calling this, at every opportunity and then some, exactly what it is: a republican tax increase. It's the epitome of weakness that they are going to allow themselves to be saddled with the other party's tax increase, simply by letting the other party's bill run it's intended course.

[Xenotime]

57. well said

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

13. Never mind the Bush tax cuts

It's time to let the REAGAN tax cuts expire.

[nashville_brook]

15. wouldn't that be nice: return to Reagan-era tax brackets of 50+ % for the wealthiest robber barons

[nashville_brook]

16. dupe/delete/hiccup

[Kalun D]

14. Obama Promised

to immediately rescind the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent as soon as he gained office.

The first thing he did once he gained office was immediately go back on his promise.

It would not surprise me in the least if Obama pushes to extend the tax cuts for the filthy rich greed pigs, after all he is a bought and paid for puppet of them.

[ipaint]

17. Dems will extend them in exchange for a bit of tax cut "stimulus",

another extension of unemployment benefits and possibly additional weeks for long term unemployed. 7 million people running out of unemployment in Nov. isn't going to get out the vote.

[nashville_brook]

21. ...

somehow, the notion that they'd trade keep the cuts for <$250K, doesn't seem like horse-trading. i feel like, as long as The People get the benefit that's fine. but, if there's a trade where the rich are allowed to keep bleeding the treasury, then i'd be pretty irate.

[ipaint]

28. Dems always negotiate from a position of weakness just as

we are expected to vote from that very same position.

The politicians on both sides can continue to rack up campaign donations selling influence, policy and votes to the top 1%, we unfortunately just keep getting screwed.

[nashville_brook]

29. it seems to me that the widespread sense that this is so, is new.

and, that this negotiating/voting from weakness belies that truer motivation (to keep the $$ rolling in).

iow, we're much more cynical now than we've been in the past, and that's going to play out in ways that i'm not sure we can predict.

[ipaint]

34. I started in the workforce in '71 at 15 and a half. I don't remember

a time when poor and low wage workers weren't under attack by the elite. Seems the choice has been 2 steps back as opposed to 5 steps back since I can remember. The relative prosperity of the middle class covered up for a lot of sins on both sides of the aisle back then, again mostly directed towards the low income and poor.
Not so much today now that the significantly weakened middle class is solidly in the cross hairs of the elite.

[nashville_brook]

36. we have a systemic economic unfairness for those of us at the bottom -- and, by bottom, i mean

the non-executive class. my little DINK family is likely doing way better than most, but i hold no illusions that i'm anything but barely hanging on middle-class status. i have a permanent back injury that could put me out of the workforce at any given moment. which, would also knock me out of having access to healthcare. this is the very definition of insecurity.

we're all so insecure right now, it's a miracle that things haven't gotten any uglier than they have.

[ipaint]

43. By bottom I mean those of us who have been without healthcare for most of 3 decades.

I had ins. in the early 90's for a couple years and then in 2001-03. That's it. The jobs that traditionally got me through downturns have been scooped up by the newly impoverished middle class with bachelors and masters degrees. Once again leaving those of us at the bottom very slim pickings.

It is now the middle class that is under serious attack but the only reason they have so far to fall is because they allowed the hole to be dug so deep for the lower classes and poor in the 80's and 90's.

I am finding the "new poor" middle class is waking up to what has been wrought on their less fortunate fellow citizens for the last three decades. The pendulum is bound to start swinging in the opposite direction at some point. Probably when we are all literally in the same economic boat.

It didn't have to be this way.

[nashville_brook]

48. we've been living under an illusion that there's been cyclical upturns in the economy --

there haven't been, except for those at the very top.

there's been plenty of bubbles...but those just steal more "wealth" from the lower classes when the bubble bursts (in the form of foreclosed farms, homes, etc). amassing more "wealth" at the top.

the healthcare problem is especially destructive to society. it's not healthy and doesn't breed innovation that everyone must work for a corporation in order to live -- to basically LIVE, b/c without healthcare your life is literally what is threatened. it truly is a "die quickly" scenario like Alan Grayson said. that's what they want.

[veganlush]

18. The dems problems

start and end with their message. why aren't they screaming from the roof tops the simple fact that the tax cuts have been in place for 10 years and have failed to create jobs, as pointed out in previous posts here? Why aren't they screaming from the rooftops that this expiration, the sunset clause, this "tax increase" was written by the repugnants, and forced through via reconciliation?

[nashville_brook]

24. it's mindboggling,

[mitchtv]

19. that would take unity at least with a dash of courage

NO WAY that's gonna happen

[Edweird]

23. I think at this point expecting anything other than "more of the same" is out of touch with reality.

[LostInAnomie]

26. Do the rich EVER not get what they want in this country?

[nashville_brook]

27. only as the consequence of their own oversight

[readmoreoften]

32. +1

[readmoreoften]

31. I expect that it won't be allowed to retire, but some minor, useless revision will be employed

so that Obama people can say LOOK AT WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHED--while nothing changed at all. And simultaneously the Tea Party will use those minor, useless revisions to call him a socialist.

His criminal friends on Wall St. aren't going to stand for higher taxes.

[nashville_brook]

35. i'm waiting to see what gets rolled-out on Wednesday -- but i'm not very hopeful.

[kentuck]

39. It's disturbing...

that more folks think they will not be allowed to expire?

[nashville_brook]

47. i'm actually very surprised by that.

[DirkGently]

41. If they aren't allowed to expire, then it is proven that the "fix is in," period.

There is simply no way Democrats can lose a good-faith political battle on this issue. No. Way. There simply isn't any semblance of a workable rationale the Republicans can even argue here. THEY passed the law requiring the tax cut to expire. They have made deficit austerity the central plank in their campaign.

This issue should not even be used as a bargaining chip. This stealing from the country to enrich the barest handful of least needful, least deserving people, with absolutely no benefit to the country at large, at the direct expense of the most worthy and most needful, is not debatable. It GOES. It goes now, or the present Democrats must hand in their security badges and leave the building. This is a clear "us vs them" scenario, and if Dems "can't" get the right thing done, they cannot plausibly say they even tried.

And I don't know where that leaves us. I really do not.

[DrDan]

42. no way will they expire - he needs to keep them for lower/middle income and

the only way to do that is to keep them for everyone.

The wealthy will get more wealthy.

[kentuck]

45. Why can they not pass those taxcuts?

After the others expire??

[dkf]

51. We don't have the votes. Lieberman and Nelson want all the cuts or nothing.

After the elections we will be even farther from 60 than we are now.

[nashville_brook]

52. this is what i don't understand -- how do they filibuster nothing. letting them run out, doesn't

require a vote.

what's the procedure here?

[dkf]

58. They automatically lapse. The proposal to keep the cuts requires new legislation.

Then the new legislation needs 60 votes to break the expected filibuster and come to a vote.

[nashville_brook]

61. so it's easier to let them go away. i don't see why we'd expend political capital on keeping them.

[kentuck]

59. They don't need Lieberman or Nelson for reconciliation...

They only need 50 votes plus Biden.

[femrap]

46. If they don't expire, the dems

really have nothing to differentiate themselves from the repugs. But the repugs will say that by making the rich pay more, we lose jobs.

Then why haven't we had more jobs created while they've had the tax cuts????

Plus the fucking repugs have been whining about deficits...so let the fucking rich pay their fair share.

[nashville_brook]

60. these are exactly the arguments that i had hoped we'd be hearing

[Jamastiene]

55. As clueless as our current Congress seems to be,

I see them continuing full steam with most of Bush's bullshit right wing policies. Why should they change now? The only thing I have seen this bunch lean left on is each other's shoulders, when they are cleaning the hearts and souls of all the liberals who helped get them elected off their shoes, after trampling us again and again. On most everything else, they lean right...just to be "on the safe side." After all, until it is a full 100% Democratic Congress, they can't really even pretend they stand for anything liberal, now can they? They wouldn't want to upset their precious "colleagues" in the Republican Party by daring to disagree with them, ever, now would they?

Call me bitter. I don't give a shit. I've seen this bullshit going on for far too long now to get my hopes up about anything.

I guess you could say I'm not at all hopeful the Bush tax cuts (or many of Bush's other shit policies) will be allowed to expire.

Kindergartners could legislate for this country better. I'd rather have a free ice cream holiday, all snow days, and unlimited toys than a stupid pony anyhow.

:nuke:

[Swamp Rat]

56. If they aren't, then the proverbial camel's back will certainly break.

[HughBeaumont]

62. Son of a bitch . . .

I swear to fucking God, if one more motherfucker persists in this cockamamie-assed theory that "Tax Cuts Create Jawbs", they're getting kicked straight in the fucking jaw, goddamn it.

I hope to God our President, which I voted for thinking that he would do one, just ONE thing that offers progressives a glimmer of hope that he isn't just another pocket pen of the extremely wealthy, is NOT going to be influenced by these idiot DINOs and media jackals and keep these goddamned tax cuts any longer.

How many other ways can we appease the overprivileged rich? What are you people so afraid of? "They might nott create joobbbbbss . . " Uh, what's been the excuse the past 9 years, then? The only time they hired to meet the job churn was during and after Bewsh II's re-election year (2004-05). After that, it was downhill city for the American worker.

What say our faithful deficit hawks? 4 trillion added to the debt is worth it, just so long as you don't touch the Pentagon? Just so your precious rich aren't harmed in any way?

This issue really pisses me off. Nearly 10 years of letting the wealthy off easy inspired them to sit on the free cash while our debt exploded and unemployment skyrocketed. Can anyone in this administration take a strong progressive STAND on something? Can we have ONE INCH??? PLEASE???

[kentuck]

65. I think that is what pisses me off the most also...

For ten years we have been fighting these huge deficits and huge taxcuts and now, after ten years of struggle, some folks are ready to piss it all away.

[rampart]

66. the tax cuts will never expire

i expect 0% tax on dividends, capital gains, and corporations to spur "growth" and "create jobs"

0% estate tax in order to "allow families to accumulate capital"

a flat tax on income, the actual percentage does not matter, as only employees actually receive income.

an increase in fica in order to "preserve social security" as a means tested welfare program available after age 70 or so.