Let's look at it this way...if the tax cuts for the rich WERE made eternal...why go on?

[Ken Burch]

We all know it would have to mean that nothing progressive could ever be done by the government, and without the possibility of anything progressive in the future, this party couldn't possibly have a reason to exist anymore. It'd be back to the policies of Grover Cleveland, and none of those policies helped anyone.

Is there anyone here who could seriously argue that any issues still mattered, that there'd be any reason for this party to even bother nominating candidates, if eternal fiscal conservatism was imposed?

Especially since we can assume that the party would then go totally right-wing on the handful of side issues that Bill Clinton wasn't right-wing on.

Obviously same-sex marriage would never be legalized. Obviously, the fight for choice would be lost. If you're against social spending you're right-wing on those issues too. Obviously, the defense budget would never be cut again, since if you're against social spending you're a hawk.

Those of you who are trying to sell us on the idea(and there have been some threads on this today)that it's "no biggie" to give up on ending the tax cuts for the rich have an obligation to tell us why this WOULDN'T make politics utterly meaningless and wouldn't be the end of history. It's on you guys.

Tell us why caving on the tax cuts for the rich WOULDN'T make this party useless and pointless? Tell us why it would matter after that who won in 2012, since whoever won would have to be governing like Sarah Palin on everything if that person agreed with her on economics.

[robinlynne]

1. I hear you.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. What I love are the DU Deficit Hawks (on other things) who are okay with this.

[emulatorloo]

8. Where who how?

You can't be a deficit hawk and want permanent tax cuts for the wealthy. Just isn't possible.

[RainDog]

3. Who needs terrorists to destroy America when you've got the right wing? n/t

[obxhead]

4. What about the deficit as well?

I'm not saying the deficit is or even should be a top priority, but eventually it will have to be dealt with. These tax cuts will be a small yet critical part in dealing with the deficit.

Anyone calling for the extension of tax cuts for the top 2%, especially without covering the costs, is guilty of treason against America and its citizens in my opinion.

K&R, great OP.

[emulatorloo]

6. 700 billion a year adds up. It is a shit load of money being added to the deficit

[Warren DeMontague]

5. No. Things like same sex marriage and pot legalization are not just possible, they're inevitable.

The truth neither the "values voters" or some on the left want to acknowledge is the libertarian, Libertarian (there is a difference) not to mention just plain self-interested streak in the electorate. Massive waste of tax dollars doesn't help- and no, I'm not talking about stimulus or unemployment spending, I'm talking about the military, the drug war, the war in Iraq, etc. etc.

I think a cogent case could be made for targeted tax increases on the top earners could be made, but it would get a helluva lot further in the context of real "change"- cut the military, end the drug war, legalize, regulate and TAX marijuana.. stop pissing away our $$$ on all sorts of idiocy, from "abstinence only" education on down.

But the same old arguments aren't going to cut it. People are receptive to "liberal" ideas on things like gay marriage, but that doesn't mean they are old-school liberals. There is more than one axis at work, here, beyond simple left-right.

[emulatorloo]

7. Well if the top 2% tax cuts were made "eternal" then we'd have to fight to repeal that law

Not sure how a law gets to be eternal - laws can be repealed, or a new law can be passed to make the old one obsolete. Tax structure has changed over the years. Why shouldn't it change again.

[Ken Burch]

9. That's what "made permanent" means. Permanent means unchangeable.

And even for two years, it would mean the deficit was so high that whoever was elected in 2012 would have to spend four years cutting the remnants of social spending and environmental protection and labor law.

The tiny shards of progressive policy that don't involve spending would be irrelevant. There is no such thing as "radical but cheap".

[emulatorloo]

11. Nothing is "permanent" Any law can be repealed. Are we still using Reagan's tax

Policy for example? Tax rates have changed over the years. There is no such thing as "to the end of time" permanent except say an amendment to the constitution. There is no way that could happen with Bush tax cuts.

At any rate yes the deficit would be a disaster if these tax cuts were to continue year after year after year.

[Ken Burch]

10. The other thing is, even if it were possible to extend the tax cuts for the rich for "two years"

(and you know the 'pugs would write the law so it was never JUST two years)this party would gain NOTHING from letting that happen.

No voters anywhere would reward us for it.

[emulatorloo]

12. I agree. I look forward to Pelosi's vote on tax cuts for middle class only

on Thursday. I hope to hell Reid figures out a way to RAM IT THROUGH the Senate.